Summer Jobs
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I will not be moving the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
I do not know how you felt when you got up this morning, Mr Speaker, and you saw the Order Paper. I saw that there was a debate on summer jobs and I thought, “That’s going to be nice and summery and bright and optimistic—the sun is shinin’ in the sky, there ain’t a cloud in sight.” But then along comes Mr Night with all his doom and gloom and rheum in his eye—
Chris Bryant
A depressing version of reality.
I know that the Tories do not support proportional representation, but none the less we have had the single transferable speech delivered by the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) from the Conservative Front Bench. To quote Sam Fender and Olivia Dean, “All my memories of” the Tory Front Bench “ring like tinnitus”—only I do not mean that in a good way as it is in the song.
Let us look at the actual facts. On GDP, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne has been predicting doom for months, but the UK economy grew by a robust 0.6% in the first quarter of 2026, something the Conservatives would have died for during their 14 years in Government. On inflation, he has been making dire predictions for months, but the consumer prices index stayed steadily at 2.8% in May, defying expectations. On wages, average regular pay, excluding bonuses, increased by 3.4% year on year up to April 2026, ahead of inflation. On productivity, he kept on saying, “Oh woe is me”, here, there and everywhere, on every broadcast outlet in the land, but UK productivity increased by 0.9% in the first quarter of 2026. On employment, he said we are doomed—
“We are doomed, Captain Mainwaring!”—
but in the three months to April 2026, UK unemployment fell slightly to 4.9%, meaning we are outperforming other major economies, including Canada and the European Union average, and we have a record number of people in employment at 34.4 million people.
We are absolutely not complacent about any of this. Some of the global headwinds remain challenging. The impacts of the war in Iran, which the Conservatives wanted us to go into at full scale, have yet to be fully felt, but we are making progress.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Nowhere is the summer job more important for young people finding work than on the Isle of Wight, but employers are telling me that it is increasingly hard to employ young people because of the tax and the red tape that this Government have put on them, so it is no wonder that youth unemployment is up. I have an idea for the Minister: why does he not reform welfare and reverse the decisions made by his Government so that young people can find a job?
Chris Bryant
I am not sure that there is “nowhere” in the country where that is more important than the Isle of Wight—every single constituency in the land faces challenges around getting young people into work. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), raised a completely different set of issues from those raised by the hon. Gentleman, but of course we have to reform welfare. I do not think a single Member of the House does not believe that we have to reform welfare. We have to ensure welfare works for people and enables people to get into jobs.
There is one phrase that the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne used that I completely agree with, although I would just change one word. He said that as a Conservative, he believed that work is the route out of poverty and into prosperity, and as a socialist and a Labour party politician, I agree that work is the route out of poverty, to self-fulfilment, to better mental health and to increased social cohesion across the whole country, so of course it is an absolute priority for any Labour Government to want to get as many young people into profitable work as possible.
Let me deal with the three main issues that have been raised in the debate: first, young people and their summer jobs; secondly, support for businesses; and thirdly, tourism. I see the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), is in his place, so he may want to raise some of the issues around tourism later. I think he has been out in the sun a bit too much—I am a bit worried about him. Skin cancer is a major problem in the country—[Interruption.]
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Why is the Minister talking about people’s skin?
Mr Speaker
Order. The shadow Deputy Chief Whip should know better—I expect him to set examples, not break them.
Chris Bryant
I did not know the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) is the shadow Deputy Chief Whip, but there we are. If the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham is upset I am terribly sorry, but I think he was taking my words in the way that I intended them.
I am sure that we can all remember our first summer job. Mine was in a newsagent/sweet shop. Others might have been behind a bar, which is very common, or working in a hotel. Wimbledon takes on 280 14 to 17-year-olds as ball boys and girls every year, plus many more young people in its bars and hospitality venues. The Commonwealth games in Glasgow, which should bring £150 million of extra investment into the city, will take on more than 3,000 volunteers and hundreds of temporary staff. The Edinburgh festivals will take on even more young people working across all the different events.
In tourism hotspots across the country, from Margate to Harrogate to Whip-Ma-Whop-Ma-Gate in York, in Bath, Stratford-upon-Avon, the Lake district, the Peak district and on the Jurassic coast, youngsters will be earning a wage for the very first time. That is a really important part of their social and personal development. We all know how important such jobs are to the whole economy. As several hon. Members have said already, getting their first experience of work teaches young people about the need to turn up on time, to look somebody in the face and engage with them, and to understand the rigours of work and stay until the end of the day.
The tourism industry meets domestic and international demand. We are still ambitious: we want to get to 50 million international visitors to the UK by 2030. Hospitality offers young people the chance to go from having no qualifications or experience to skilled staff member faster than any other sector in the UK, which is why it is so important.
Wendy Morton
If the situation is so rosy, will the Minister explain why youth unemployment among 16 to 17-year-olds is currently running at a staggering 30%—up from 24.7%?
Chris Bryant
I never said that the situation was all rosy; I said earlier that I am completely not complacent about the situation. I know the problems facing young people going into work that have been endemic in our economy for the last 15 to 20 years. A Conservative Member—I am sorry that I cannot remember who—asked earlier, “Isn’t university a fraud on young people?” Of course, it is really important to strike a balance between getting the experience to get into work rather than necessarily taking on an academic career. We have been keen to change that mix since we came into government.
I do not suppose that there is a single Labour Member who does not worry about the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training—NEETs, as people have referred to them already. Alan Milburn’s report is a real wake-up call for us all. We are fully backing the review and will of course act on its recommendations when they finally appear. We want to make sure they are based on evidence, which is precisely what Alan Milburn is pursuing.
Chris Vince
I apologise to the whole House that in my previous intervention, I did not mention my constituency of Harlow. I will put the record straight now and talk about the incredible work that Harlow college is doing to support young people who are not in education, employment or training. As part of the ongoing Milburn review, will the Minister look at some of the good case studies, like Harlow college, to help benefit the Government’s thinking?
Chris Bryant
Mr Speaker, did you know that he is the Member for Harlow? That had completely passed us by completely, hadn’t it? My hon. Friend makes a good point and I am sure someone will send him a letter thanking him for it. I am sure lots of us have similar examples in our constituencies.
Chris Bryant
Maybe the Father of the House is about to give us another instance of an institution in his constituency.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am just wondering if the Minister is looking forward to a new summer job at the end of July. Can he give us any confidence that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has any new ideas to get young people into work? If he does, I am not aware of them yet.
Chris Bryant
Actually, quite a few mayors around the country, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), have advanced a lot of ideas in their areas that have precisely done that. It is important that we do not simply adopt a one-size-fits-all approach for the whole country. The kind of issues in my patch will be very different from those in the Father of the House’s patch, and we need to be able to match our ideas to the areas. As for the longest reshuffle in history, I think most of us are bored with it already.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Minister is talking up the economic performance of the United Kingdom since his party took over in 2024. He is labouring the point about the first quarter of this year, but I detect that he is less confident about the second quarter—we will see what that brings. Youth unemployment stood at 626,000 last year, so with this fabulous economy, why has it gone up by 109,000? Why are there 109,000 more 16 to 24-year-olds out of work under this Government now than there were this time last year?
Chris Bryant
I want to be absolutely clear. I am not trying to suggest that everything is perfect in the nation and that we are in a version of nirvana; I am not saying that at all. I have friends and relatives who work in the hospitality industry, and I know that these last few years—not just the last two, but the last 15—have been really tough for hospitality. I think we lost something like 6,800 pubs from 2010 to 2024, and we have been losing more since then.
Chris Bryant
I am still trying to answer the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me.
We have faced significant headwinds this year. We are keen to pursue the work that Alan Milburn has done, and, if I am allowed, I will come to some of the ways in which we are trying to address the specific problem we have.
John Glen
I recognise that the Minister wants to come to what the Government are going to do, but does he not accept that the decisions already made in the last two years—with respect to the price of employment and the national living wage, the cost of employment with regard to legislation, and business rates—have depressed the appetite of many small businesses to employ more people? Regardless of the strategic changes around the Milburn review, which I accept need to be evidence based, those decisions have had a chilling effect on the capacity of the economy to employ young people.
Chris Bryant
Let me say two things. On the national living wage, it must surely be wrong that somebody who works 40 hours a week cannot afford to pay their bills at the end of the week. If they have been a diligent worker, played by the rules and done everything properly, but they still cannot afford to put food on the table for themselves and their children, pay the electricity bill and all the rest of it, that must surely be wrong. That is why we introduced the whole idea of a minimum wage in the first place, and then the national living wage.
This issue applies only to young people older than school age—those aged 18 and above. I know that there are some people who have an impression that all those young people are living at home and do not need to earn in the same way as others, but that is simply not true for lots of 19, 20 and 21-year-olds in my constituency. They are earning their living, and they need to pay the bills, just like anybody else. There is a difficult balance to be struck there.
Similarly, I would argue, there is a balancing act around national insurance contributions. As the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) will know, we have tried to ensure that the sectors of the economy that are smaller and have less ability to absorb the additional costs do not have to meet them. I think something like 50% of businesses do not have to pay any more at all—I will correct the record if I have got that number wrong. In the end, I do not hear people frequently calling for us to slash expenditure on defence, education, the health service and so on. I sometimes want to say to hon. Members that it is all very well to denounce the national insurance contributions increase, but they would have to find the money from other budgets. It is all very well to say, “Let’s cut it from welfare,” but a lot of welfare projects are designed to make sure that people have an opportunity to put food on the table and pay the bills.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Chris Bryant
I am keen to move on, but I am an enormous fan of the right hon. Member, so I will give way to him.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is always great to have the Minister at the Dispatch Box; we always have a lot of fun. I have had to juggle this issue myself, so I want to ask him a very important question: does he honestly think that making the starting rate for national insurance payments almost half the previous rate has no effect on part-time employment? Does doing so not discourage those who would like to give people starter jobs? It makes that much more difficult; surely that is the reality.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman makes a decent point. A balance has to be struck on all these things and, in the end, we have to make the sums add up when it comes to the Budget. Those are the difficult decisions that we had to make back in November 2024. The other issue we faced was that no provision had been made for support for business rates beyond April 2025 prior to the Budget in November 2024, so when we introduced measures in that regard, they had to be paid for too.
I heard what the shadow Minister has just said about abolishing business rates, but I am afraid that this is Trussonomics. It sounds great—“Let’s abolish all tax! Why not?”—but you actually have to pay for that and prove that you have the wherewithal to do so. I will crack on if I may, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Apologies, Mr Speaker; I did not mean to demote you there.
We are already taking action by putting an additional £1 billion into programmes such as the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy, which are supporting almost 1 million young people and creating up to 500,000 opportunities for them to earn and learn. We have also been offering new incentives of £2,000 for those hiring foundation apprentices aged 16 to 21. That comes on top of a complete national insurance contributions exemption for employees under the age of 21 and apprentices under the age of 25, which I think meets some Members’ arguments.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that I am going to crack on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. He will have an opportunity to—
Dave Doogan
It is always nice to be the Minister’s first refusal. Have I put him off his stride?
Chris Bryant
No, no—but making a snide remark has not recommended the hon. Gentleman to me any further, I have to say.
A seasonal job may be the first route out of NEETdom. That is why we built flexibility into the Employment Rights Act 2025 to address issues of seasonal demand. Not all seasonal work is done on a zero hours or similar basis, but, where it is, there are provisions in the legislation to allow those guaranteed hours to be part of a fixed or limited-term contract where appropriate.
Let me be clear that the right to guaranteed hours does not force companies to make seasonal workers permanent; it gives workers the right to choose certainty and stability in their contracts where they want it, which will help them to budget and plan their lives. That is the right thing to do. It ensures that workers are fairly treated and affords employers the flexibilities that they need, while giving around 2.7 million workers a pay rise thanks to increases in the national living wage and the national minimum wage. I should add that the Department is running a consultation on some of the finer details of our zero-hours policies before they come into effect, and I encourage businesses to share their views with us so that these reforms work in practice, not just on paper.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way before he finishes?
Chris Bryant
Oh, I have hours yet—and I still have to give way to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens—but of course I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Damian Hinds
The Minister said that he would not move the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I do not think that is unheard of, but I am curious to understand why, having put down such an amendment, the Government would not move it. There are three main things here, and the Minister has talked about two of them: the Employment Rights Act and apprenticeships. The third main thing seems to be about planned changes for business rates. In not moving the amendment, is the Minister saying that the Government do not stick by what they said previously about upcoming changes to business rates on pubs?
Chris Bryant
Touché, Mr Speaker! [Interruption.] Oh, Madam Deputy Speaker is taking the Chair. Well, I saw you off, Mr Speaker.
Chris Bryant
It has all got very unconventional.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is misinterpreting what is occurring. If he wants to reason with this matter, I am afraid he needs to talk to the Whips, who are in charge of decisions about whether we move things and vote.
I said that I would address the issue of support for businesses, and that is precisely what our “Backing your Business” plan is all about. We are rolling out one of the most significant pieces of legislation in more than 25 years to tackle late payments: the Commercial Payments Bill. We are expanding access to finance through the British Business Bank to give more small firms the confidence to grow and take on more staff, with guidance and support available from our business growth service every step of the way.
We are bringing in new hospitality zones with reduced red tape and licensing costs. These new zones will make it easier for businesses to move into disused spaces and employ more people. In addition to all that, we are cutting this year’s business rates bills for pubs and live music venues by 15% following a two-year freeze, and we are encouraging large concert venues to introduce a £1 levy on a voluntary basis to go towards supporting live music venues. It is great that Harry Styles, Olivia Dean and others are encouraging people to do that for their tickets, but it is not universal yet. It could be a significant advantage for live music venues, so I encourage all operators to do this.
Chris Bryant
Yes, and I would be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) again if he wants.
Sarah Bool
On the issue of support for businesses, Brackley Antique Cellar is a unique business that has 200 dealers, but business rates are really affecting it. Antique spaces often take on unique properties, and business rates are really hurting them. Will the Minister reconsider the business rates for businesses such as Brackley Antique Cellar?
Chris Bryant
I have heard about that issue in relation to some other antiques businesses that are basically lots of stalls or small shops inside a much larger, older building. The hon. Lady makes a decent point, and it is one of the things we will be considering as we look at the future of business rates.
We have also introduced permanently low tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000. This gives long-term certainty and support to the high street, and stands in marked contrast to the previous forms of relief, which created a yearly cliff edge that had been due to end entirely in April 2025. At the same time, we are increasing the hospitality support fund to £10 million, helping more businesses in this sector to grow and create more summer jobs. As hon. Members know, we have extended world cup opening hours and cut alcohol duty on draft pints. Despite being a Welshman, I very much hope that we have to do that rather more frequently over the next two weeks.
Chris Bryant
I still have an intervention to take from the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens from the SNP if he wants to have another go, but if not, I will give way to the right hon. Lady.
Wendy Morton
Does the Minister not accept that the schemes and programmes to do with the world cup—let us hope England stay in for as long as possible to help those businesses—are merely small sticking plasters? We need longer-term solutions for these industries that are much more sustainable.
Chris Bryant
Yes, I do not think England’s football prospects over the next few weeks are going to be the sole answer to the problem. That is why I have laid out a series of different areas in which we are already taking action, which I think will provide precisely the kind of long-term answers the sector needs. The Government have also protected the smallest businesses from the impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. That is really important, and is very rarely mentioned in Conservative speeches.
I said that I would talk about tourism. I know that the Conservative party dislikes the idea of the tourism levy, and I have heard businesses complain about it as well—hotels in particular, but other parts of the sector too. I also worry that businesses are already facing a heavy tax burden, and I do not particularly want to increase it, but let us not exaggerate. First, all we are considering doing is allowing mayors to introduce a local levy. Some areas have already done so on a voluntary basis, and have done so very successfully. It seems extraordinary to forbid them from doing so, especially if they ensure that all the money raised goes into projects that support the tourism and hospitality sector. In certain instances where mayors want to introduce such a levy, it could be a real opportunity to drive forward economic opportunity in that sector.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The King’s Speech mentioned that mayors might have that power, but that foundation strategic authorities might also have it. Obviously, the approach has not been decided yet, but is that still the case?
Chris Bryant
Yes. I am very glad that my hon. Friend picked me up on that—that is a very good point.
I want to make another point about the levy, which is that some people seem to be suggesting that all of this is going to start in a couple of weeks’ time. Far from it; this levy is far from imminent. We are consulting on it, and that process will take some time—I doubt we will have anything in place in the next 12 months. I very much encourage people to take part in the consultation so that we can decide how to move forward. Of course, any mayor or strategic authority will want to consider all the issues in the round and whether a net benefit can be gained from introducing such a levy, notwithstanding the additional pressures that there might be on costs in the tourism and hospitality sector.
Tim Farron
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and for raising the issue of the tourism levy. We will have a mayor in Cumbria next May, and one of the considerations they will have is the fact that we have 20 million visitors every year to a county of 600,000 people. Those visitors use facilities in our communities—police, hospitals and many council facilities, not least the roads. They are very welcome to use those facilities, but not a penny is contributed towards them. I think people will instinctively be against a tourism tax, but the Government’s choice to cut the local authority’s funding by 31% is going to put the mayor—of whatever political colour—in a position where they feel they have no alternative but to introduce it. Would it not be better if mayors were able to make decisions and have our services funded properly by taking into account the visitors in the first place?
Chris Bryant
One thing on which I think the hon. Gentleman and I agree is that this is a very over-centralised state. We make far too many decisions on a national basis, rather than allowing local people to make more decisions that directly affect their businesses and their local economy. The economy in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency might be very different from mine or that of any other Member.
In relation to tourism in particular, I am conscious that some of the country’s biggest tourist attractions are in London—the British Museum and the Natural History Museum, for instance, get roughly 6 million visitors each—and a few other cities, including Bath, Stratford, Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh, do phenomenally well. Those cities might want to take a different attitude to that of other parts of the country, and I think that is the right way for us to move forward. There will be pressure from people who say, “Hang on, all our local museums are free to enter. Why are local taxpayers having to pay for that, rather than tourists when they arrive?” Those are the issues that mayors and strategic authorities will have to bear in mind, and it will sometimes be a borderline decision, but I think it is right that we give people the power and leave them to decide whether to exercise it.
There is one final policy area that I want to touch on, because it is mentioned in the Opposition’s motion, and that is red tape. There is an irony about this—much of the red tape we are dealing with is in place because the previous Government introduced it. That is why we have set ourselves a very clear target of cutting the administrative burden on businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament, and we are absolutely determined to do so. I fully accept the argument that there is far too much red tape; if we make it too difficult for businesses to employ people, that is an own goal for Britain. We are making progress—we have already announced a series of significant reforms that will mean no more mandatory strategic reports for medium-sized firms, and no more directors’ reports for businesses of any size. That is going to save businesses some £230 million a year, but obviously we need to go further, and the Business Secretary is going to be making further announcements.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
My very first experience of employment was waiting at a van to try to get a day’s work, cash in hand, at the berries, which was what people usually did when they were aged 13 or 14 and looked a wee bit older. I hope the Minister is not proposing a return to those days, because I kind of got the impression from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), that that was the exact type of employment he was looking to return to.
Chris Bryant
To be fair to the shadow Minister, I do not think he intends to send children up the chimneys any more. That was his policy a few years ago, or maybe his predecessor’s policy, but it is not his policy any more. It is not quite “Planet Earth that the Opposition are on, to quote Duran Duran, but they are close to it.
The Opposition motion talks a lot about regret. It regrets the Employment Rights Act 2025, the national insurance contributions, and so on. I am afraid that it tempts me to give my notorious Édith Piaf impersonation:
“Non, rien de rien…Je me fous du passé”.
What is missing from these regrets of the Opposition? They have no regrets about helping draft the kami-Kwasi Budget that led to the fastest ever increase in mortgage rates, sending millions of families into unaffordable debt; no regrets about the biggest fall in living standards for two centuries; no regrets about slashing our public services, including the NHS, local government and our armed forces; no regrets about 14 years of anaemic economic growth. No regrets? No, I have regrets. I regret that the Conservatives ever got into power. I regret that they have become Mrs Thatcher’s moaning Minnies. I regret that they left us with a nation divided against itself, but I do not regret the Employment Rights Act—I am proud of it.
To be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have not moved the amendment, and I am not moving it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I am grateful to the official Opposition for giving us all an opportunity to reminisce about our own summer jobs. Probably many more years ago than I would care to admit, I was lucky enough to work both as a cleaner and at my local Co-op to help pay my way through the summer. Both those jobs were important to me; they not only stopped my mum murdering me for being around the house too much, but provided that crucial introduction to the world of work, and an opportunity to start to establish some of the disciplines and awarenesses of life that have served me, I should like to think, reasonably well over my 36 years on this planet—
Alistair Strathern
I am grateful for the protestations from the Front Bench.
Those jobs were also crucial in starting to form my politics. In both settings, I was incredibly lucky to work with some fantastic colleagues. Not only did my clumsiness—from spilled buckets to broken bottles in the aisles—mean that I often relied on their generosity and patience with my ineptitude, but they gave me a window into lives that were very different from mine to date. There were similarities between those two jobs. Both sets of people worked in industries in which the minimum wage had been crucial to driving up their security and sense of prosperity. They were grateful for that, and as a result there was a great deal of support for the Labour Government at the time.
However, there was one crucial difference. At the Co-op, those with whom I worked had regular contracts, secure work and good terms. They were supported by a recognised trade union, and felt a comfort and security in their jobs that was denied to many of those with whom I worked cleaning local schools. There, the practical realities of limited terms and conditions, and insecure work with non-guaranteed hours, were not artefacts of a contract or remote bureaucracy; they were tangible insecurities that hung over people’s day-to-day lives, and undermined their sense of security and ability to plan with confidence for the future that they wanted to provide for their family. That is why, many years down the line, I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are delivering a record expansion of workplace rights through the Employment Rights Act 2025, and why the fundamental vision of protecting workers and ensuring a minimum social contract for those working hard for their families and doing right by their communities will always be foundational to my politics.
We come here not to embrace the contradictions and tensions that inhibit social change and progress, but to be creative enough and bold enough to lead the country, and to lead the way to a better economic settlement for the working families whom we are here to serve. That is why the minimum wage has been so transformational for our country, and why we have weekends now. I am very confident that in time, the Employment Rights Act will prove to be a big step forward for so many of the working people I am proud to represent. That does not mean that every aspect will always be perfect. Consultations with businesses and employers will be foundational in ensuring that we get the nuances right, when we look at how things play out in different employment settings, but the fundamental principle is this: my constituents and the cleaners I worked with deserve more confidence and security in their employment. That is exactly why I feel completely at home on the Government Benches, with my Labour colleagues.
The Conservatives’ motion raises important issues. It is absolutely right to say that, over many years, we have not done enough collectively to bear down on some of the barriers to young people getting employment. We are doing a lot of work on that, but there is a lot more that we need to do. I am really glad that this Government are waking up to the need to do far more on vocational skills and apprenticeships. They are thinking about how we can reform qualifications to ensure greater alignment with our industrial strategy, and the growth opportunities that will come from industrial changes, but they are also breaking down practical barriers to accessing opportunities for young people in my communities and right across the country. The Government are introducing foundational apprenticeships, and are making sure that they are in reach of the hardest-to-reach young people—those who are desperately in need of the steps into work that apprenticeships can provide. They are reforming levies to make it cheaper for employers to take on apprentices and give them the training that they desperately deserve.
Mr Bedford
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. I think the pace at which this was brought in has had a massive impact on businesses, particularly smaller businesses, and their ability to adapt to a changing labour market.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to continue my conversation with the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). My other concern is how it can possibly be right that somebody is employed for and works 40 hours a week, but their pay is not enough to cover the bills or to avoid being subsidised by the state afterwards. That is one key question we have to answer.
Mr Bedford
Too many people are growing up believing that hard work is no longer rewarded and aspiration is no longer valued. That is not the message we should be sending to the next generation. We owe our young people better than that.
For many of us in this House, a summer job was how we first learned what work is. In my case, it was stacking shelves in a corner shop, then working behind a counter at a local café and then in a greengrocer. Each one of those jobs taught me the same lesson—the value of money and the pride that comes from earning it oneself. That is why I support the action the Opposition are taking to save the summer job.
We would cut business rates for the businesses that create those first-rung jobs, not have another round of tinkering with multipliers and reliefs. We would scrap the archaic restrictions that stop young people choosing when they work, such as the outdated limits on Sunday working and the rules that bar them from working after 9 pm. A young person helping in a restaurant or a hotel is not being exploited; they are gaining experience, earning money and developing skills that employers value. We would end the culture of excessive bureaucracy that greets any employer offering a teenager their first opportunity, because every unnecessary form is yet another reason to say no. We would repeal the most damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act and give employers the confidence to hire again. We would give SMEs proper, simple access to a growth and skills levy, so that a seasonal job can become an apprenticeship instead of simply ending in September.
I have heard what the Minister and hon. Members have said, but it is important that we give young people the dignity of a job, and a Government who are serious about work do not legislate away the very jobs our young people need. A summer job is about not just a payslip, but confidence, responsibility and resilience. This Government’s actions have limited those opportunities, so I urge the House to support our motion, and I urge Ministers to give our young people back their first chance of building a successful career.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is right, of course. I do not think anybody in the House of Commons would argue that there should be no employment or workplace regulation at all. [Interruption.] Well—actually, I do not think anybody does, genuinely. I certainly do not. I welcome very many of the rights that have come over the years. However, it would be totally ignorant to suggest that new inflexibilities and rigidities can be brought into the labour market without their having an effect on unemployment. Whenever there is an effect on unemployment, there is always a magnified effect on youth unemployment, and we want to ensure that young people can get into and stay in jobs.
I want to speak briefly about the costs of employment. This is much harder to talk about, because whenever anybody talks about the realities of equalising pay between younger people and slightly older adults—not that people do so very often—they can be vilified easily for being heartless, uncaring, discriminatory—you name it. However, sometimes being in this place as a politician and a representative and having the best interests of our constituents at heart means having to say difficult things. This difficult thing is something that I think most people here know—including, actually, most Labour MPs—but it is difficult to say.
Let me take a little bit of the heat and politics out of it by talking about a hypothetical situation. This is not the situation that we actually have today, because we have differential national insurance contributions by age. Imagine a situation where an employer has a job vacancy and they have two applicants who in all other respects are the same, but one is 30 years old and one is 18. Who is the employer going to employ at exactly the same wage, with all other things being equal? They are, of course, going to employ the person with experience—the person with both work experience and life experience, who has just been doing it a little longer, working with teams, dealing with colleagues and dealing with customers.
I use that hypothetical situation just to establish the principle that wages do have an effect, and that is why the Low Pay Commission—[Interruption.] The Minister can screw up his face again if he wishes.
Damian Hinds
Well, I will help him with that. That principle is why, back in 1999—under a Labour Government, as he will recall—when the original minimum wage came in, the Low Pay Commission specified that there should be a different rate for young people. That was for two reasons. The first reason was because of the work experience effect: there is a difference in how employers view people with a few years’ work experience and others without that experience, and if those rates were exactly the same, youth unemployment would inevitably rise. The second reason was to recognise that very many of those younger workers are in some form of education or training at the same time. We all want people to be properly rewarded for the work they do. The best thing is to be well rewarded in a job, but the worst thing of all is not to have a hope of getting into a job that is well rewarded.
We have talked a bit about the national living wage. Of course, we all want the national living wage to keep going up. That is why we brought it in, by the way, in 2015, with the explicit intention that it would keep rising until it was further up the income distribution. However, we do have to acknowledge the reality. As I say, I think that most people present know that there is a difference by age and that it is there for a reason.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
Resilience is vital in all our supply chains. That is why we have launched the supply chain centre, which will help to strengthen that resilience. War, extreme environmental events and the deliberate or accidental closure of shipping routes can affect everything from agriculture to construction in the UK. We want to do everything we can to predict, assess, minimise and mitigate those risks.
Chris Hinchliff
We have already seen the vulnerability of our economy to global supply chain shocks from the impact of wars on food, fuel and fertiliser prices, but scientists now warn that we are likely to be heading into a super El Niño—a global heating event that will trigger extreme weather around the world, threatening fish stocks and agriculture, disrupting the Panama canal and bringing climate-induced fires that destroy vital timber supplies. How are Ministers preparing for those risks?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise El Niño. We believe that it has already started, and we are conscious of the issues that may arise from it. We are closely monitoring it and trying to ensure that we have resilient policies in place in every single sector, including agriculture and fisheries.
I should underline that the launch of the supply chain centre is an important moment for us. For the first time, we will have a body that can anticipate future supply risks, identify the inputs the UK needs, build domestic resilience and foster resilience through global partnerships. Those are important ways of ensuring that the UK has strong supply chains.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answer. As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, I am particularly concerned about the problems that the Windsor framework has created for those trading across our borders and between our ports—he has answered my questions on this on other occasions. Businesses continue to report increased costs, administrative burdens, disruption to supply chains and delays. As a result, businesses have stopped trading into Northern Ireland. Given the likely negative economic consequences of that, will the Minister consider further steps to reduce those burdens and ensure smooth trade into Northern Ireland?
Chris Bryant
We are doing that all the time, and that is why we bring the issue of resilient supply chains into consideration in all our international trading relationships. For instance, particularly important to Northern Ireland is our relationship with the European Union, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in mentioning the Windsor framework. I am keen to ensure that resilient supply chains are looked at in the relationship between the EU and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, because it is not just what happens on the continent of Europe that is important; it could be what happens in the Gulf or the situation in Ukraine, which had dramatic effects on supplies of fertiliser around the world. We take specific action to ensure that we guarantee those supply chains.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
Our most critical supply chains are those that are directly linked to our national security. From autonomous vehicles to blast protection, British small and medium-sized enterprises are the vital link in the supply chain, ensuring that our armed forces have the capabilities to face down our adversaries. The Government have said that the Defence Office for Small Business Growth has an important role to play in supporting the sector, so how is the Minister co-ordinating with the office? If I am a defence SME, how will it help me?
Chris Bryant
What is really important is the work that the Department for Business and Trade does in knitting together all our different policies—for instance the trade strategy, which looks at these issues, the critical minerals strategy, the small business strategy and the industrial strategy. All those need to mesh together. One of the key things we have done is to produce, for the first time, a growth-driving inputs list that specifies the particular elements that are vital for SMEs’ growth into the future. That is precisely the kind of action that a Government need to take to guarantee economic growth for the future.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful for that very comprehensive answer to a very different question—less of an answer, more of an interpretive dance.
Gareth Davies
I just want an answer! Defence SMEs have said that the delay of the defence investment plan caused great uncertainty and disruption to the sector. In addition, they are completely confused by this Government’s endless offices, initiatives and quangos. Will the Minister commit—if he is still in position in a few weeks’ time—to providing more certainty to such an important sector?
Chris Bryant
I know from my constituency and across south Wales how important it is to have a defence investment plan that delivers jobs across the whole of the United Kingdom. One of my anxieties about the previous Government was that they refused to take action either to invest in our armed forces or to ensure that we were able to produce things in the UK, rather than relying, for instance, on steel to produce everything that our armed forces need. That is why we introduced our steel trade measures earlier this week.
And there is nothing wrong with interpretive dance, Mr Speaker. As you know, the creative industries are an important part of our economic future, with 5% growth under this Labour Government.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
We are taking two steps to try to drive up our trade with Europe. First, we are seeking bilateral wins with individual countries like the small modular reactors deal that has just been done by Rolls-Royce in Sweden, or opening up the pilot digital trade corridors that we have with Germany and France. We are also seeking to renegotiate a reset with the European Union as a whole. In the words of the Sugababes, we stand ready to “Push the Button”.
Richard Baker
The EU is a key trading partner for Scotland, accounting for almost 40% of Scotland’s international exports. Can the Minister reassure my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife that while we wait for a new date for the EU summit, this Government will press ahead with plans to align with more areas of the single market, so that we can continue to remove barriers for our businesses to trade with Europe?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not least because in the most recent figures, our trade in goods with Europe has fallen by 2% in the last year, whereas our trade in services has grown by 7%. All of this shows what a shockingly appalling, shameful, despicable deal was done by the previous Government with the European Union. It was bad enough leaving, but the terms on which they left were absolutely appalling for British businesses. We are determined to turn that around, and we will.
Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Ten years on, Brexit continues to have a detrimental impact on Scottish businesses to the tune of almost £4 billion in lost revenue per year. Forty per cent of businesses say that Brexit is the main cause of trade difficulties. One of the worst hit sectors is farming, and lots of farmers in my constituency have written to me—even in the last two weeks since I was sworn in—to tell me that Brexit continues to put up barriers to business and trade, including through labour shortages, trade friction and long-term uncertainty over subsidies. At a time when food insecurity and the cost of living cannot be disentangled from the experience of farmers, what is the Minister doing to support farmers in my constituency to produce the food that we need at this crucial time?
Chris Bryant
I want to recruit the hon. Lady to my campaign to make sure we end up with a better deal with the European Union, so that UK farmers can export easily and readily into the European Union and we can get goods from across the rest of Europe into the UK easily. So many sectors are affected. I sat down yesterday with Tracy Emin, one of the world’s greatest artists, who explained to me the problems since Brexit in bringing artworks in and out of the European Union from the UK. Resolving those problems is an important part of ensuring that we remain the second biggest art market in the world—again, part of the creative industries, which we should be supporting.
Chris Bryant
I do agree on the broad principles, but the Lib Dems were part of the coalition Government who created the momentum toward the Brexit referendum in the first place, so I am not going to sign up to any Liberal Democrat campaign. We are going to make sure that we reset the relationship with the European Union.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
John Cooper
While still at school, I played my part in the creative industries by playing in bands with names as louche as Street Lethal and Cheap Sweeties. It was very lucrative.
John Cooper
I’ve got it! In the modern era, that all important first job is increasingly hard to find because of the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the massive 330-page Employment Rights Act 2025. Will the Secretary of State go to the new northern powerhouse Cabinet and impress upon the Chancellor the need to save our summer jobs and cut the burden on industry?
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
When it comes to international deals, we regularly fight determinedly for the farming sector and the wider food and beverage sector. Sometimes that means defending our UK farming and food standards, but just as often, we are able to secure significant advances; for instance, we have managed to secure increased access for British beef in the United States of America, for lamb and salmon in India, and for lamb and beef in the Gulf. We will always fight for the British farming sector.
Joe Morris
The effects on farmers and food standards are some of the most visible and felt impacts of trade policy, and obviously domestic agriculture is one of our sectors that are most sensitive to import shocks. Does the Minister agree that transition periods are vital when the Government are negotiating international trade agreements? Will he commit to making sure that the farming sector is properly consulted on implementation and transition periods for any agreement that is made, and particularly the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, and will he work across Government on that?
Chris Bryant
I commend my hon. Friend—since he has been in the House he has raised lots of issues on behalf of the farming sector in his constituency. Some of those are issues that need to come directly to Ministers, so that we can take action on them, and this is one of them. We are very keen to make sure that the SPS agreement is negotiated in a way that really works for farmers in the UK, but I would also apply that to any free trade agreement we were to sign up to. I am very keen to ensure we get good deals for British farmers, and as I say, we will always, always, always defend farming standards and food standards in the UK. Those are not negotiable in free trade agreements.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Farm profitability in the UK is incredibly low. As we know, for many farms it is less than 1%. Reports show that a poorly negotiated and poorly implemented sanitary and phytosanitary agreement could see a 10% hit to profitability for our arable farmers. That will have a trickle-down impact across the whole agricultural supply chain, impacting many businesses UK-wide. How is the Minister’s Department working with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that our arable farmers and the supply chain are not impacted?
Chris Bryant
We have regular conversations and at every stage, we are trying to ensure that we get the best possible deal that works for UK farmers. I just say gently to the hon. Lady that I was a Member in this House, representing a Welsh seat with many Welsh farmers, when the previous Government struck the deal with Australia and New Zealand. Welsh farmers, both in my patch and elsewhere in Wales, were absolutely furious, because it did not seem to consider their needs for a single instant.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
When I visited NDT Equipment Ltd in my constituency, the director Dan Lenton showed me the ultrasonic test calibration blocks and reference pieces that it uses and supplies to manufacturers in a wide range of sectors in the UK and abroad. This steel is not manufactured in the UK; it is imported and is high grade. I know Ministers are being flexible and talking to hon. Members. Will the Minister please consider the grade of steel that the company uses, which I believe is EN3B, and exempt it from the tariffs?
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
We have already laid out our steel trade measures, which are there to ensure that the UK has a steel industry. This is vital for our economic future. I want to make clear that 73% of all steel imports into the UK are not in scope of the measure, but I will, of course, look at this specific issue. If my hon. Friend would like to have a meeting with me and officials, we can make sure that that happens.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Last night this House debated the extended producer responsibility, which is seeing breweries, pubs and other businesses pay twice to recycle glass bottles. What meetings has the Department for Business and Trade had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to raise the economically damaging nature of this tax? If it has not raised concerns, will it?
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government’s critical minerals strategy was a fantastic achievement, with clear targets, and it will kick-start a nascent industry. To take the next step to get the sector up on its feet and to a more competitive place, will the Minister support a Government price certainty mechanism for lithium?
Chris Bryant
That is one of the issues that we need to look at not just in the UK but with our international allies. We have got ourselves in a ludicrous position where critical minerals are available all over the world, but 85% of them are only processed in one country. We need to ensure that we have resilience in this area, and it is precisely the kind of issue that we need to look at to protect jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I recently visited Envirovent, a manufacturer and supplier of sustainable ventilation products just outside Harrogate. It was recognised in The Sunday Times’ best places to work 2026 and recently produced its three-millionth ventilation fan unit. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Envirovent on those achievements, and perhaps visit to see the fantastic work it does for the people of Harrogate and North Yorkshire?
Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade to make a statement on steel tariffs in relation to Northern Ireland.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I hope you would agree, Mr Speaker, that I have always done my level best to come to the House first with any new announcements.
As I told the House last Thursday in written and oral statements, the Government’s new steel trade measure comes into force tomorrow, immediately succeeding the expiry of the steel safeguard, ensuring that there is no gap in protection for our domestic steel industry. The European Union has today also announced the details of its trade measure, which comes into force tomorrow. Since the announcement of its measure on 7 October last year, we have engaged extensively with the EU and agreed an approach that reflects the UK and the EU’s highly interconnected supply chains. This will provide stability for UK-EU steel trade from 1 July while we continue to work together to strengthen UK-EU steel trade for the longer term.
As Members would expect, our engagement has also covered the matter of Northern Ireland in some detail. This ensures that specific arrangements are and will be in place to facilitate the continued smooth movement of steel to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, guaranteeing that movements of steel within the UK market will not pay EU tariffs. These arrangements, which are aimed at comprehensively protecting the UK internal market, include the retention of the seven tariff-rate quotas—for categories 7, 8, 9, 13, 17, 25A and 28—and specific arrangements for other categories that will continue to mean that UK-origin steel can move tariff-free to Northern Ireland.
The arrangements will operate from tomorrow, 1 July, and taken together will serve to protect the operation of the UK internal market and flows of goods within it. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is now taking steps to confirm the arrangements with industry, including business representative organisations in Northern Ireland. The Government will continue to provide guidance and support to traders moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through the trader support service, and we will work closely with the EU to ensure that these arrangements operate effectively in practice.
We are doing two things. First, we are protecting the UK internal market; secondly, we are giving UK steel production the protection it needs so that we have strong UK steel production that is able to meet at least 50% of the UK’s steel needs.
Jim Allister
I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House. I have to say, there is an inherent absurdity, and indeed a constitutional offence, in having to come to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom to ask whether there will be any tariff arrangements on moving steel from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Indeed, one recalls that last Thursday, the Minister said that he could not tell us because he had to await the EU decision, which underscores how absurd it is that these matters are governed by a foreign jurisdiction and not by ourselves.
I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, is there any quota differential in regard to any class of steel, and if so, in respect of which classes?
Secondly, will the EU’s new traceability rules, which it calls the “melt and pour” rules, be applied to steel being imported into Northern Ireland? If they are, they will impose an extra layer of bureaucracy, with form filling and certificates having to be obtained that are not required when steel is brought into Great Britain. Could we have clarity on that?
Thirdly, last Thursday the Minister said that 74% of steel imports to Great Britain will not be covered by the UK trade measure. Can the same be said of Northern Ireland? Is it the same level of exemption—if we want to call it that—in respect of Northern Ireland, given the import of the EU governance? I ask those questions because in Northern Ireland we do not make steel; we rely exclusively on importing it. Many businesses in Northern Ireland depend very much on steel imports, yet here they are facing a new regime tomorrow and only hearing about it today.
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, but I think that the absurdity all lies with the hon. and learned Member. He seems to be trying to create a difference between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which we are striving in every way to prevent. We have made it absolutely clear that the existing—[Interruption.] If he chunters from his seat he will not be able to hear what I am saying; I might be able to enlighten him.
There are seven key categories that are most important to Northern Ireland. Category 7—steel plate—is important for shipbuilding and defence. Category 8—stainless, hot-rolled sheets and strips—is important for automotives. Category 9—stainless, cold-rolled sheets and strips—is also important for automotives. Category 13—rebar—is important for construction. Category 17—steel beams—is also important for construction. Category 25A—large tubes—is vital for the oil and gas industry. Category 28 —alloy wire—is important for fencing.
In all those categories, we have maintained the tariff-rate quotas. There is no difference. From the initial conversations I had with the European Union back in December last year, we have made it absolutely clear that we want to make sure that there is a single market between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that there is no border down the Irish sea.
All this shows the patent nonsense of having left the European Union. I know that the people of Northern Ireland agreed with me on that and disagreed with the hon. and learned Member. The truth is that we would not have to negotiate with the European Union on these matters if we were still a member, and there would not be any of these quota issues. It is true that there is a problem with overcapacity of steel around the world, but the UK is not the problem for the EU, and the EU is not the problem for the UK, so, frankly, we should come to a very sensible arrangement. That is what we have mostly managed to do so far, but we will continue to discuss it with the EU.
Seventy-three per cent of steel imports into the whole of the UK, which includes Northern Ireland, are completely excluded from the measure, and the tariffs only apply above the quota levels. For many categories, we have managed to create quota levels that are above existing trade flow levels, so I do not expect there to be problems in those. But in some areas we are deliberately trying to make sure that people use British steel, because Britain now produces only 4 million tonnes of steel. If we do not continue to make steel in this country, a significant problem will accrue to us into the future.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for bringing this important urgent question to the Chamber. I welcome the Government’s ambition on British steel, but British Gypsum in my constituency has raised concerns about the short-term impact of tariffs and called for transitional arrangements for steel to avoid unintended consequences in the construction industry. Will the Minister comment on the idea of better, stronger transitional arrangements?
Chris Bryant
As I explained last Thursday, we have introduced transitional arrangements to make sure that for the first quarter, imports are possible where people already have contracts to bring stuff in. As I say, 73% of UK imports of steel will not be in scope of the measure at all and can come into the UK easily. We are simply trying to make sure that for the categories of steel that we produce in the UK, people turn to British production. That is the way in which we can ensure that we still have strong steel production in the UK into the future. If my hon. Friend has specific issues relating to a company in his constituency, I am very happy for my officials to meet with them.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this urgent question. The Conservatives have made clear for a number of weeks how concerned we are about the incoming steel tariffs that will take effect tomorrow. We have heard from businesses, not just in Northern Ireland but across the country, that the 50% tariff on steel imports above the quota will do great damage to upstream British manufacturing, our defence and aerospace sectors, and those who construct the nation’s infrastructure.
We acknowledge that on Thursday the Government brought forward some changes to the quotas after reflecting on concerns raised by industry, but we have now heard at the last minute that the EU has cut a significant chunk of the UK’s export quota. Businesses have been warning us for months about the damage that these proposals could cause, and they are now expected to adapt in a matter of hours, not days. Will the Minister publish the full impact assessment and communicate properly with the affected sectors? He mentioned a few ways in which he is going to communicate with them, but I cannot stress enough the urgency of getting clarity for every business across this country in the upstream steel industry.
Have any Northern Ireland businesses specifically lodged applications with the Trade Remedies Authority? I know that the Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), has kindly let us know that he cannot attend oral questions on Thursday as he will be visiting businesses in Northern Ireland. Is that to do with the serious concerns over steel tariffs?
Finally, may we have an update on the negotiations the Government are having in this area with the US and India, because it seems that whenever the UK Government negotiate on behalf of our steel industry, the industry loses out? This is all shaping up to be a disaster for steel, and we would appreciate an update.
Chris Bryant
I will start with the question about the Minister for Industry and his visit to Northern Ireland. He is visiting shipbuilding and aerospace companies. The visit does not specifically relate to steel at all.
On steel generally, the Conservatives’ record is absolutely shocking, and we will not be going down the route that they went down. When they came to power in 2010, the UK was producing 12 million tonnes of steel, and when they left power we were producing 4 million tonnes. That is an existential crisis that happened entirely on their watch. We need to address it, and we are serious about doing so.
Incidentally, countless contracts for major infrastructure projects in the UK that were awarded by the previous Government, including through the Ministry of Defence, regularly went to steel produced in other countries. I am not going to follow the route that the hon. Lady’s party went down. In fact, the then Prime Minister even refused to meet with steelworkers. That shows the level of concern that the Conservative Government had with steel. We are determined to make sure that we have a proper steel production industry in the UK, and that means that we have to take some tough measures.
In relation to the European Union, to be fair to the hon. Lady, she was not a leaver. She was in favour of remaining in the European Union. The UK has now secured 1.05 megatonnes of guaranteed access through country-specific quotas and 1.09 megatonnes of access through competitive pools—a total access of up to 2.14 megatonnes through the EU process. UK steel exports to the EU averaged 1.82 megatonnes between 2022 and 2024 when including products covered by the EU steel measure, so we did end up with a good result.
The truth of the matter, as I have said before and as we have said repeatedly to many others, is that it would be much more sensible if there was an exemption between the UK and the EU in relation to steel measures, so that neither of us was facing quotas or tariffs, because frankly we are not the problem for each other. There is a danger that in specific instances, some companies might facing tariffs going in both directions, such as Marcegaglia, which is a part-Italian, part-British steel manufacturer.
I just want to correct one other thing. The hon. Lady has repeatedly said on her X account that there will be a 50% tariff on all steel imports. This is patently untrue, and I really hope that she starts correcting the record.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his work and engagement on this issue over the last few weeks and months. I have been contacted by a range of defence and aerospace companies both in my constituency and across the UK—including some with a footprint in Northern Ireland—that are concerned that some of the quotas and exclusions do not take into account some of the relevant codes suggested by industry, which could lead to increased costs, project delays and threats to jobs in the future. Will he assure me that he will meet the industry again to discuss the codes that it feels are outstanding? Will he or his officials meet me to discuss this issue in more detail?
Chris Bryant
I have regularly and repeatedly met industry downstream and producers—I did so again yesterday—as has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), the Minister for Industry, who is sitting by my side. We have striven at every point to ensure that where possible we are including only those categories of steel that are manufactured in the UK. One of the reasons we changed the quotas in what we announced last week from the original suggestions made in March was that Speciality Steel is not up and running and therefore it is not able to supply some of the categories that my hon. Friend spoke about. In many areas, the quota is larger than existing trade levels. Yesterday afternoon, a variety of MPs came to meet me and officials to talk this through, and I am happy for my hon. Friend to meet my officials if he has specific concerns for constituency businesses.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Businesses across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are concerned that from tomorrow they may face tariffs on the steel that they are importing even if that steel is not manufactured in the United Kingdom in the quantities or grades they need. The Under-Secretary has requested that we write to him with specific examples, and I did so on 19 June on behalf of Hewland Engineering in my constituency, but it is concerned that it has not heard back yet and 1 July is coming quickly.
The Minister mentioned in his response to the urgent question that he was working hard to ensure a single market in this area between us and the European Union. The Liberal Democrats are really grateful to hear that, because we have long argued that this friction is an inevitable result of our leaving the European Union and the single market. Will he help support the Liberal Democrats’ campaign to ditch the Government’s red lines and have a new, bespoke UK-EU customs union, along with joining the single market for our new growth and defence partnership with the EU, to help protect British companies and help get Britain growing again?
Chris Bryant
He’s a cheeky one! No, I am not going to sign up to the Lib Dem campaign. However, there is a serious point here: it would be much better if the UK and the EU were to have a mutual exemption in relation to quotas and tariffs in this area. I have made the point already, but I will make it again: we are not the problem for EU steel manufacture and it is not the problem for us. The real problem is about overcapacity, and all the countries in the world that are facing this same issue should be joining together to try to tackle it.
I was asked a question about the Trade Remedies Authority. I am not aware of a particular company in Northern Ireland having approached anybody about whether a TRA investigation should be launched, but certainly there are areas where steel production in the UK could look at whether a trade remedy ought to be sought.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The world has moved on and we no longer live in a free trade utopia, as some might wish. It is clearly difficult to impose protections for our steel industry, but it is the right thing to do. Does the Minister agree that failing to impose such protections would surrender our steel industry, surrender our national defence and surrender our sovereignty to other nations, which can never be acceptable?
Chris Bryant
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. I am, broadly speaking, in favour of free trade, but it has to be free and fair trade, and one of the issues in relation to overcapacity in steel is that there is not a level playing field across the world because of subsidies and anti-competitive practices that make it impossible for UK steel to compete. It is an existential moment.
I have heard from some Conservatives that there has been an argument that we should delay introduction of the measure or that we should have lower tariffs or whatever. The truth of the matter is that, with the EU already implementing its measure, along with the US and Canada, if we were not to implement a similar measure, the danger is that we would be the dumping ground for all the cheap steel in the world, which would kill stone dead every single steel mill in the UK. This is not a Government who will put up with such a strategy.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister may have met representatives of the industry, but the question is: has he even listened to their concerns? They still say that the problems caused by his imposition of tariffs will abide with the industry. He said that he is relying on UK producers to be able to produce steel, but Tata has said that it will not be able to supply all the steel required, and one of the firms in Rotherham that he is relying on is in administration. How can he say with assurance that the supply of steel will be available?
The question for Northern Ireland is this. If Northern Ireland producers have to bring steel from the UK, they need first to be sure that the UK quota has not been exceeded, so will the Minister assure us that they will not have to be concerned about whether there is any EU quota left? Otherwise, they may have to pay tax twice.
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, but the right hon. Member simply is not listening to some of the things I have said. He referred to the business in Rotherham, which is Speciality Steel. Precisely one of the things that we changed—because we listened to people’s concerns—were the quotas that would have been met by Speciality Steel, because it is not up and running as we had envisaged. We have precisely listened and acted on that.
If the right hon. Member had been in the Chamber on Thursday, he could have taken up the offer I made to meet my officials and me to go through specific details. I have often found that businesses are being given completely misleading information about how the tariffs will or will not apply to them. If he has specific businesses about which he wants to go through the details with my officials, of course we can make that opportunity available to him.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I will take the Minister up on that offer. I wrote to him asking him to meet companies in South Antrim over two weeks ago and I am still waiting on a response to that. In his initial response, he said that the TSS and HMRC are able to support Northern Ireland companies with advice and guidance. Will he assure the House and Northern Ireland companies that they will know what they are talking about? Up until now, they have been found lacking.
Chris Bryant
If the hon. Member wants to write to me about how HMRC or the support is lacking, I would be happy to respond. Again, as I said, if he had been in the House last Thursday, he could have taken up the opportunity—[Interruption.] I made a statement in the House last Thursday on precisely all these issues, and he would have been able to take up the opportunity yesterday afternoon, as many MPs did. It is difficult to arrange precisely that same set of meetings again, but I am happy to ensure that officials speak directly to the companies he talked about so that they get the best information they need.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Minister talks about protecting the steel industry, and we can all agree with that, but steel users in Northern Ireland have been left with confusion, uncertainty and rising costs, and price gouging from suppliers is already happening. Whether he likes to admit it or not, Northern Ireland is collateral damage and often caught between UK trade policy and EU diktats, so we can understand the confusion.
Despite repeated requests, the Minister has not met businesses from Northern Ireland—indeed, I got a commitment in the House a couple of weeks ago and we are still waiting on that to happen. He needs to allow his officials to meet urgently with the industry and speak directly to it—not to trade bodies or even to us—because the industry and these businesses know exactly the answers they need to get from the Government. Will he organise that with immediate effect?
Chris Bryant
First, I note that the hon. Member’s first sentence started, “Yes, we want to protect steel production, but”—yet nobody wants us to take the measures that we believe are necessary and proportionate to do that. That is one of the problems here: of course there are trade-offs. We want to protect steel production in the UK, which we believe is essential to our national security and to having a strong defence sector into the future, and that is why we are taking these measures.
I am not sure whether I can meet every single business. We have been rigorous about pursuing every single meeting that I have committed to. If I have got this wrong, I apologise to the hon. Member, but, again, if she had been in the Chamber on Thursday, she could have come to the meeting yesterday afternoon when lots of people took up the specific issues relating to their businesses.
If it is all right, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a correction. I said earlier that 1.5 megatonnes were being allowed under the EU measure; it is 1.05 megatonnes.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement about no EU tariffs for steel coming into Northern Ireland. If we can do that for steel, can we not do that for other commodities that come into Northern Ireland? Will he look at reviewing that to see whether there are other items coming into Northern Ireland that do not need to have the same regulations?
Chris Bryant
I want to achieve frictionless trade, both within the UK internal market—I am determined to protect it as much as I possibly can—and with the whole of the European Union, because it is our single biggest trading partner. It was an act of monumental self-harm when we left the European Union that we did not achieve the frictionless trade that we need.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister has been very clear and open about offering the problem companies that are having difficulties a meeting with his officials. He has heard the number of people who have requested meetings. Will he agree to inform each Northern Ireland MP before the summer recess in 14 days’ time that either those meetings have taken place or of the dates when they will take place, to avoid any possible ambiguity going forward?
Chris Bryant
If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take me at my word, I am sorry but I will never be able to satisfy him. The truth is that I have been very open: I came to the House to make a statement last Thursday; we laid a written ministerial statement as well, which is obviously available to all Members; and I made a commitment that any Member who wanted to meet me and my officials to talk about these things could do so. Sometimes it is other people’s diaries and sometimes it is my diary that is the problem. I will not make the specific commitment that he asks for, because I think all he is saying is that he does not trust me.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers and his endeavours to find solutions for Northern Ireland. Strangford is home to a robust network of engineering and construction firms that rely on global supply chains to remain competitive and fulfil their live contracts. As a result of the Government’s new steel quotas and out-of-quota tariffs, those businesses are facing cost increases of some 18% on active projects and crippling delays. Furthermore, due to the Windsor framework, our Northern Ireland businesses are uniquely vulnerable to a double whammy of UK tariffs and EU-related red tape. If Strangford’s engineering companies fold, the Treasury will lose corporation tax and pay-as-you-earn contributions, and will ultimately have to pay out benefits for staff made redundant. Given the gravity of the situation, respectfully—the Minister knows that I always do things respectfully—will the Minister commit to providing exemptions from these punitive tariffs for specific grade sizes and specifications of specialist steel that are not manufactured domestically?
Chris Bryant
We have always said that we want to provide protection for the categories of steel that are manufactured in the UK and that people can source in the UK. That is our primary aim. We need to keep that under review. As I said last Thursday—the hon. Gentleman will know this, as he was present—we will keep it under review from day one, and there will be a formal review process at the end of the first year. We need to make sure that that is true.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a double whammy. I would say that Northern Ireland also enjoys a double benefit, because it is both within the UK internal market and, in many ways, within the European market. That is a significant advantage for Northern Ireland that other parts of the UK do not necessarily enjoy. I am very happy to meet any Member—I have always held the view that no Minister should ever refuse a meeting with another Member. I made that offer last Thursday, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and that offer still stands.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership: June 2026 Update
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
In Melbourne, Australia, at the 2025 comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership ministerial commission meeting https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cptpp-joint-ministerial-statement-in-melbourne-21-november-2025 CPTPP Ministers identified that Indonesia, the Philippines, and the United Arab Emirates are in line with the Auckland principles—principles that CPTPP parties consider when assessing accession applications. At that same meeting, CPTPP Ministers committed to meeting again in the first half of 2026 to take further decisions on these three accession applicants, as appropriate.
Ministerial commission meeting - 26 June
In the early hours of 26 June 2026, I attended a virtual commission meeting alongside CPTPP Ministers and representatives; to meet the commitment we made in Melbourne. At this meeting we approved by consensus to begin preparatory discussions on accessions with Indonesia, the Philippines, and the United Arab Emirates. We have tasked CPTPP officials to commence these discussions over the coming months.
At the commission meeting, CPTPP Ministers also:
Noted the substantive conclusion of negotiations with Costa Rica and that we have commenced Uruguay’s accession working group.
Approved the establishment of an ad hoc working group to enhance cooperation on rules of origin, customs administration and trade facilitation to maintain a fair and transparent trading environment.
Took note of ongoing work to upgrade the CPTPP agreement following the general review.
Recommitted to the work underway in dialogues between CPTPP parties and the EU and ASEAN.
The full joint ministerial statement of the meeting outcomes can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cptpp-joint-ministerial-statement-from-the-10th-commission-meeting-26-june-2026/comprehensive-and-progressive-agreement-for-trans-pacific-partnership-cptpp-joint-ministerial-statement-on-expansion-implementation-and-co-operatio
Energy security and supply chains for essential energy products and other impacted commodities
At the same meeting, CPTPP Ministers issued a joint ministerial statement emphasising the importance of maintaining free and open markets and rules-based trade in energy and other impacted products, in light of recent global disruptions: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cptpp-joint-ministerial-statement-on-energy-security-and-supply-chains-for-essential-energy-products-and-other-impacted-products/comprehensive-and-progressive-agreement-for-trans-pacific-partnership-cptpp-joint-ministerial-statement-on-energy-security-and-supply-chains-for-ess
Next steps
CPTPP Ministers will convene again towards the end of this year for the CPTPP commission meeting under Vietnam’s chairship, I look forward to keeping the House updated on future CPTPP developments.
[HCWS154]
Steel Trade Measure
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The Government are today announcing the final details of the new steel trade measure coming into effect on 1 July 2026, a cornerstone policy of the UK’s steel strategy, and a further example of delivery on our modern industrial strategy, which charts a strategic course that allows business to make long-term decisions and focus on creating wealth and prosperity.
Steel overcapacity continues to distort markets, drive down prices and threaten the viability of our already fragile domestic steelmaking sector. UK steel production has more than halved in the last decade. Other countries are acting, including the US, Canada and the EU, with the EU’s measure also coming into force on 1 July 2026. This Government cannot, and will not, jeopardise domestic steelmaking given its importance to critical national infrastructure and defence. We must act now to secure its future.
Since our 19 March announcement, we have listened to stakeholders across the steel supply chain, including producers and downstream users, and have adjusted the steel trade measure’s product scope and quota volumes. We have also engaged closely with the EU and agreed an approach that reflects the UK and EU’s highly interconnected supply chains. This will provide stability for UK-EU steel trade from 1 July, while we continue to work together to strengthen UK-EU steel trade longer term.
We recognise that this will create changes to trade flows including with some of our closest trading partners. We want to reassure them that the UK remains committed to our international obligations and to constructive engagement on our steel measure. We recognise that this is a challenging time for steel industries globally, and that is why we will continue to prioritise working with partners to tackle overcapacity.
From 1 July 2026, we will now limit tariff-free steel imports and reduce overall quota volumes by 51% compared to the steel safeguard, protecting domestic producers while maintaining continuity of supply for downstream users, including the automotive, construction and defence sectors. The overall quota volume will be 3.2 metric tonnes, an increase of 21% compared to our previously published provisional volumes. We have also removed 11 product codes, where new information confirmed there was no UK production, and added two codes where there is evidence of production. Detailed information on quotas will be published on gov.uk.
Where quotas are filled, imports above these levels will face a 50% tariff. The measure will apply only to products that can be made in the UK. In a limited number of cases, technical constraints mean that product codes cannot be cleanly separated, with some codes covering both UK-produced and non-UK-produced grades and sizes of products. In these instances, quotas have been designed to allow sufficient imports, ensuring continued availability for UK users without imposing unnecessary additional costs.
We will continue to engage closely with industry across the supply chain. We will actively monitor implementation of the measure to ensure it operates as intended, and we will continue to engage with businesses. We will also review the measure after 12 months to ensure it remains effective and that the balance is right for industry. To ease potential short-term impacts, a transitional arrangement will apply whereby goods under contract before 14 March 2026 and imported between 1 July and 30 September 2026 will not face the 50% tariff or count towards quota volumes in the first quarter. We have provided technical guidance on these arrangements and on quota administration, including how unused quota volumes will “roll over” across quarters within the same quota year.
Specific arrangements will be in place to ensure that steel can flow to Northern Ireland. The Government will continue to provide guidance and support traders moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through the trader support service and work closely with the EU to ensure these arrangements operate effectively in practice.
In parallel, the UK has launched an article XXVIII process at the World Trade Organisation to permanently raise the maximum most favoured nation steel tariffs that we can apply to steel imports. We will shortly confirm members’ rights and expect to begin negotiations in the autumn. This process is separate to the new steel trade measure and will create the necessary policy space to ensure the sector has sufficient tariff protection in the long term.
This Government are acting now to secure the future of the UK steel industry. We are determined that steel will remain at the heart of Britain’s future.
[HCWS146]
Steel Trade Measure
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on our steel trade measure, which will come into force on Wednesday 1 July.
Let me start with first principles. The UK needs a strong steel sector, both in production and downstream, but the whole sector is facing an existential moment. Fifty years ago, the UK produced 27 million tonnes of steel a year, and even in 2010 we produced 12 million tonnes, but in 2024 we produced just 4 million tonnes and met just 30% of UK steel needs.
No Government can or should ever accept such a sharp decline in an industry that forms the backbone of so many other sectors, including defence. We promised that, in government, we would do two things in tandem. First, we promised to launch a steel strategy to tackle all the key issues facing the sector in the round. That strategy, which we published on 19 March, includes up to £2.5 billion of Government investment on top of the £500 million pledged for steelworks at Port Talbot, plus active support for this energy-intensive sector through the British industry supercharger. Secondly, we said that we would introduce a robust new steel trade measure that secures the future of the UK’s steel industry, to protect our ability to produce steel for defence and critical national infrastructure. Today, I will address the latter point.
Why do we need the steel trade measure? A key part of the existential threat to UK steel production is global overcapacity, a lack of transparency about international subsidies and artificially depressed global prices, all of which price UK steel out of the market. For the past eight years, UK steel production has enjoyed some protection thanks to the UK’s steel safeguard, which it inherited from the EU. That allowed us to protect categories of steel manufactured in the UK with quotas and a 25% out-of-quota tariff. That protection, which was introduced by the previous Government, was clearly not sufficient, as our steel sector has continued to suffer. In the seven years under the safeguard, up to 2024, steel production has continued to fall by 3.3 million tonnes—a stunning further 45%.
We now face a key moment. That safeguard must legally expire on 30 June, as World Trade Organisation rules firmly prevent an extension of a safeguard beyond eight years—it is precisely the same for the EU. If we put nothing in its place, our steel production sector will lose all its protection. That would not just bring our steel industry to its knees; it would kill it completely. That is why I promised the House that I would not allow a gap between the expiry of the safeguard and the implementation of our future steel trade measures. We are making good on that promise today.
There is an additional concern. Canada, the United States and the EU have already put in place similar toughened measures to protect their industries, so if we do nothing, or if we delay the introduction of new measures, we will immediately become the global dumping ground for cheap steel from across the world. Again I say: that would mean the end of UK steel production. That is why we must take similar action to the European Union, which announced its measure on 7 October last year. Earlier this year, we committed to introduce a 50% out-of-quota tariff on imported steel, and in April we published provisional quotas for several key categories of steel. This measure needs to work not just for our steel producers but for our manufacturers, who depend on steel—those who source it from the UK and those who source it from abroad. Our aim is solely to protect categories of steel that we produce in the UK, so we have deliberately excluded many categories from the measure. To be absolutely clear, nearly three quarters of UK steel imports by value, and 53% by volume, are out of scope of this measure.
Today I announce the final design of our steel trade measure, which will take effect on the same day as the measures imposed by the European Union. The total quota volume will now be 3.2 million metric tonnes. That is an increase of over 560,000 metric tonnes of steel that can be imported tariff-free compared with the provisional volumes that we announced—a significant 21% uplift. Today’s announcement includes the final quotas in each category. Having listened to Members and industry, we have increased the quotas in several instances so as more accurately to protect categories of steel that are manufactured in the UK.
Some of the changes reflect the fact that the European Union remains our largest export market for steel and that we have highly interconnected supply chains. Since we announced our measure in March, we have engaged intensively with the European Union and UK industry. We have reached a mutual outcome with the EU as a result of those discussions. On our side, we will increase the EU’s quota access from the announced 1.58 million tonnes to 2.08 million tonnes, and the EU will announce quotas under its own measure shortly. That will provide stability for UK-EU steel trade from 1 July while we continue to work together to strengthen UK-EU steel trade in the longer term. We have also worked closely with our international partners, and we are committed to constructive engagement with them on our steel measure. We will continue to prioritise working with our partners to tackle overcapacity.
I want to be very honest with colleagues: there are tough trade-offs here. We are determined to ensure that steel continues to be forged and made in the UK by proud steelmaking communities across the UK—in Port Talbot, Motherwell, Scunthorpe, Sheffield and on Teesside. The Labour movement was forged in these communities, just as steel was, and we will not let them down. But we know that businesses will sometimes need to find specialised steel that we simply cannot procure in the UK. In those cases, quotas have been designed to allow for imports and to ensure continued availability for UK businesses without unnecessary additional costs. To ensure continuity within supply chains for business, we are also introducing a transitional arrangement. That means that our new trade measure will not apply to steel under contract before 14 March, and imported between 1 July and 30 September. We will conduct a review after 12 months and actively monitor implementation of the measure from day one to ensure that it operates as intended and remains responsive to emerging evidence and stakeholder feedback.
There are some who think that steel is an industry of the past. Others think that the market alone should provide—“Just buy it as cheap as you can, whatever the cost to British industry.” I could not disagree more, because I know how that script runs. We buy cheap this year and next year, and maybe for a decade. Unable to compete, our national steel industry dies in the meantime. Every single UK steel mill closes. Then suddenly, miraculously, the global price rockets up, and we have nowhere to turn because we are caught in a trap of our own making. I fully understand the concerns of those who worry about this measure, and will seek to address them, but I say to them that this is in the interests of the whole sector—producers and users alike.
Finally, I will be hosting a drop-in surgery for Members on Monday 29 June from 3.15 pm to 5 pm, where colleagues can meet with me and officials to discuss any concerns and to understand the impact of this measure on the particular businesses in their constituency. I hope that will be of convenience to Members.
I would especially like to thank my officials, including Beth Sedgwick, Malte Werner and Chris Taylor, and the wonderful Lola Oates in my private office, for all the work they have done on this. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
We welcome the partial U-turns that have been announced, the engagement there has been and the reflection, even at this very late hour, that the original proposals from the Government would have done great damage to British manufacturing. This decision could, however, have come months ago. If not, it could have come weeks ago, when Members of the House and businesses started raising the alarm and engaging with the Department. It took this Government—if Members can remember—more than a year and three quarters to come up with their original steel strategy, yet the industry is now expected to adjust with less than one week to go. That is not a reasonable way on which to proceed.
The Government have left untouched the 50% tariff rate, and that will do great damage to British manufacturing, house builders and those who construct the nation’s infrastructure. It will mean higher inflation, fewer jobs, fewer homes and fewer public projects. The Government have made some welcome concessions on how much steel can be brought in but conceded nothing on the rate that punishes imported steel the very moment that the quota is exceeded.
I know, as does the Minister, that he has received significant private representations from industry on this issue, particularly from defence and aerospace, and I imagine that the Minister does understand that this measure will not be enough. Of the 60 codes that we believe are relevant to aerospace and space, just two codes have been removed, and while quota uplifts have been applied, they are not particularly useful to the small-scale, high-value defence manufacturers, as commodity buyers will snap up all those quotas at the start of the year before they get a look-in.
As a result, we are, I am sad to say, putting the defence of this country at risk by imposing a shock to defence industry prices, and it will either be the Treasury or the Ministry of Defence that picks up the bill. Projects such as AUKUS, Tempest, drones and much-needed munition rearming will all be vulnerable as a consequence.
Finally, let me put some questions to the Minister on behalf of the industry. Will he commit to publishing the impact assessment on downstream steel sectors before Parliament rises for the summer? Does the Minister understand that by not exempting pre-agreed purchase contracts, which may in some cases run for years, he is damaging good, decent British manufacturing firms, even those in Rhondda and Ogmore? His exclusions rest on a test of “no production, or production paused”, but will he explain how he justifies keeping specialist grades in scope when in some industries, such as aerospace, it takes years to certify suppliers? Can he confirm that the EU’s reciprocal quota for exports from the UK will fully protect the 2.4 million tonnes of annual British exports of steel that would otherwise be at risk?
Chris Bryant
I honestly just do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands how this works—any single element of it, to be honest. Let me first address his point about the timing. I would have much preferred to give greater notice to everybody, and I worked towards being able to do so. Unfortunately, one of the key parts of the interaction is with the European Union, and we only completed our negotiations with the European Union over the last few days. I point out that the EU itself has not as yet announced its quota, either with us or for any other country, and will not do so until Monday. I wanted to bring this forward as soon as I possibly could.
The hon. Gentleman refers to U-turns. We have listened to the concerns both from specific businesses—I know that some are very pleased with some of the categories we have changed and the quotas we have increased—and from hon. Members, who have brought their concerns to the Chamber or directly to Ministers. We have tried to address as many issues as possible, but, as I said in my statement, there are difficult trade-offs here.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should cut the 50% tariff rate. I am not sure that is a point he has made anywhere previously, but if we had a lower tariff rate than other countries, in particular the European Union, we would—this is why I do not think he understands how any of this works—immediately become the dumping ground for all the cheap steel in the world. We would be a magnet for that and we would be exacerbating the problem for steel production that we already have in the UK.
The shadow Secretary of State raised the question of defence. I have looked carefully at this. Of course, he wrote a letter this morning that made some rather ill-founded remarks about what is likely to happen to defence. First, Sheffield Forgemasters is already providing significant amounts of UK steel precisely into the UK defence sector. When the defence investment plan is produced, I want it to deliver jobs in the UK rather than just everywhere else in the world, and I would like more of our defence industry to be based on using UK steel, because that would be a double win for us.
I note that when the previous Government were in place, they commissioned: Type 26 frigates—65% of that steel came from Sweden; Type 31 frigates—all the steel from Finland; and four Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tide-class tankers—44,000 tonnes of steel from Korea. When the Dreadnought-class nuclear ballistic submarines were commissioned by the last Government, where did the steel come from? From France! We can do far, far better than this. It is absolutely preposterous that only 30% of UK steel needs are being met by UK steel production. We need to get that number up. We have committed to getting it to 50% and that is why I am immensely supportive of the measure that we are introducing today.
I also want to make it clear that a lot of categories of steel—as I said, three quarters of the steel by value—is not in scope of the measure at all. That means it can come in and out of the UK without any tariff. Also, the 50% tariff is not on all the steel in a particular category; it is only on that above the quota. In significant areas, we have increased the quota and, for instance, in categories 4, 6, 12A and 7, which is particularly important for the defence sector, the final quotas are higher than the levels of historical trade because some of the previous quotas were not even being fully used. I am afraid that the hon. Member is wrong in nearly every single element of his analysis—and that is not the first time, is it?
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Although I certainly welcome the protection of our steel industry, I remain concerned about some tariffs and quotas affecting some products. I am pleased to hear the Minister reiterate what the Industry Minister said on Wednesday: that, alongside measures to protect our industry, our Government are absolutely committed to increasing the range of products that we make in the UK. To that end, will the Minister meet me to discuss a proposal from a constituent of mine in Llanelli to open a manufacturing facility to produce steel bands, which currently have to be imported from the EU, so we can bring that production back to the UK?
Chris Bryant
That is an extremely well made point. Gun barrel manufacturing is being done in the UK again thanks to a Sheffield Forgemasters contract that has been secured. We need to bring more of these categories back into UK production. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. She might want to come along to the surgery that I am doing on Monday afternoon with officials. If she wants to talk to me, she knows how to find me. She is absolutely right that we need to increase the total quantity of steel that we are producing in the UK, protect what we are already doing and find new areas where we can produce steel. We will never do that unless we introduce tough protections in trade measures to deal with the problem of global overcapacity.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Steel matters. It matters for our national security, our defence and our critical infrastructure, and it sustains jobs right across the United Kingdom. British Steel supports thousands of jobs and over a billion pounds of economic activity through its own operations and supply chain. It also underpins hundreds of thousands more jobs and several billion pounds of activity across the industries that depend on it. It has been battered by Trump’s trade war and by years of unfair practices from China.
Steel is an industry worth defending, and Liberal Democrats support that goal, but we have been vocal about our concerns regarding the impact of the Government’s proposed tariffs on downstream manufacturers. Downstream steel-using industries employ 300,000 people, including some of my Hazel Grove constituents. A blanket approach risks weakening a far larger manufacturing jobs base while doing little to protect British steel.
I am pleased that the Government have listened to our concerns and to those of industry. The quota increase and product code removals are positive steps, so I have just three questions. First, categories 14 and 27 cover specialist steels required by aerospace, defence, Formula 1 and precision engineering, which cannot be sourced domestically in the required grades and volumes. Do those categories fall within the 11 product codes that have been removed from the arrangements? Secondly, the transitional arrangements only protect contracts signed before 14 March. What protection exists for manufacturers who have signed contracts in good faith between March and today? Thirdly, the WTO process will begin in the autumn. Will the Minister confirm that any permanent tariff increases resulting from that process will not permanently lock in higher tariffs on specialist steels that cannot be sourced domestically?
Chris Bryant
I think the hon. Lady was confusing product codes and categories. If I start with 17, we have increased the quota by a significant amount. I hope that that will reflect the lack of production at the moment, which several Members have already raised with me. We have done that specifically to answer those questions. We have done likewise in category 14, stainless bars and light sections.
The hon. Lady asked about the transition arrangements. I referred to that in my statement. If she wants further details, she can come and talk to me about it on Monday. Also, I am not sure whether Minister are meant to admit this, but I did not fully understand her last question. If she wants to either grab me later or drop me a note, I will respond to her that way.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Tata Steel’s Steelpark in Wednesfield and manufacturers across Wolverhampton North East and the Black Country rely on resilient supply chains for steel. Will the Minister set out how today’s statement on increased quotas and steel under contract before 14 March will continue to back British-made steel production while giving downstream manufacturers the competitive certainty and confidence that they need?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right to defend her constituents’ interests. We have tried to meet the precise concerns that she raises. I would be happy to go through with her on Monday afternoon each of the different categories of steel that might be applicable to her area. Some people have given the impression that we are cutting all categories of steel and that nobody will be able to bring in categories of steel without being tariffed. Actually, the quotas in most areas allow for historical levels of imports, and in others areas where we produce in the UK we are trying to persuade people to buy and use British steel. That is the whole aim of the measure. We are trying to get two wins out of this. As I say, I am happy to take my hon. Friend through the various specifics in relation to individual categories, if she wants, on Monday afternoon.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Hundreds of my constituents work at Scunthorpe steel, so I am obviously supportive of any action that the Government take that will protect those jobs. I also welcome the adjustments that the Minister has announced, and I agree that it is preposterous that defence contracts do not ensure that we use British steel. Surely doing that is one of the benefits of not being tied to EU procurement rules. Does he agree that it is in the Government’s gift to ensure that the industry benefits from reduced energy costs? What will the Government do to ensure that the Scunthorpe works benefit from lower energy costs in the very near future?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member will know that we changed the rules of the supercharger in April this year, taking the support from 60% to 90% of energy costs. The point is well made about energy costs being one of the things that have made it difficult for steel over the last decade. On whether we are better being in or out of the European Union, one of the ironies is that if we were in the European Union, we would not have to be negotiating about its imposition of tariffs and quotas on us. I am not sure that that is a very good line of argument. Finally, I was pleased to see in Kyiv in January that one of the six bridges that had been destroyed by the Russians when trying to invade the city had been rebuilt—and guess where the steel was made? The United Kingdom. That is the kind of thing that we should be investing in.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
My constituency has many steel fabrication businesses, some of which I visited recently. Will the Minister please outline how he listened to such businesses and their concerns before this announcement?
Chris Bryant
My officials and I have spoken a great deal to the kind of businesses that my hon. Friend is talking about—not all of them, but a large number of them—and have tried to explain that we are trying to tackle only those categories of steel that can be and are being produced in the UK. Those are the ones that we are trying to protect; as a south Wales valleys MP, like myself, he will fully understand the obvious reason for that.
That has meant that we have increased some of the quotas to allow more tariff-free imports—precisely to answer the question that some of my hon. Friend’s companies may have. If he wants to go through the specifics of the companies in his patch, I would be happy to do so. I will not have pleased everybody—in my life, I very rarely ever have. [Laughter.] I did not mean to unite the Chamber on that point. We have tried to listen where we possibly can, but there are difficult trade-offs.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The imposition of tariff barriers alone is not sufficient to address the shortcomings in our steel industry. The Minister said that it is important to provide more opportunities to help people buy British steel, but there is a difference between saying that and making it happen. He will be aware that we lack the heavy plate steel and plate rolling capability needed for building offshore wind turbines, which could be made in Port Talbot rather than having to be imported from abroad, and that specialist plate for defence applications is also limited. What are the Government doing to close those strategic capability gaps? Have they assessed whether developing a heavy plate mill at Port Talbot could help to underpin the offshore wind industry that we could build in the Celtic sea?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member makes a good point. This is why we have a steel strategy as well as the steel trade measure, which is only part of the steel strategy. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), was in the Chamber answering an urgent question on some of these issues last week. Some of the energy issues that others have raised are key to making this happen, as is, of course, Government procurement policy. One of the first things we did when we arrived in government in 2024 was introduce a new procurement strategy in relation to steel. The very least we could do is ensure that when the Government are spending taxpayers’ money, they are spending it on British steel wherever possible.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I refer to my membership of GMB and Unite. I thank the Minister for his statement. I understand the trade-offs he referred to and the need to take measures to rebalance the sector. He knows, because we have spoken about it a lot, that the steel strategy refers to 50% of future UK-made steel being Welsh steel. Will he say a bit more about that? It is something that my constituents are particularly passionate about.
Chris Bryant
There is a very fetching photograph of my hon. Friend and me at the electric arc furnace at 7 Steel in Cardiff. It is a very impressive operation—it is a very impressive photograph—and he makes a good point. We want to get to 50% of UK steel needs being met by British-made steel; it is a very simple campaign. The sector has now been in decline for decades, and we are at a critical moment. I have heard people say, “Why can’t you just delay this measure for a few months?” That would be the end of UK production of steel—completely and utterly. We simply cannot allow that to happen, given our defence needs, infrastructure needs and, frankly, national security needs. That is why we are committed in the way that we are.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister spoke about monitoring this policy from day one, but there will not be a review for 12 months. What will the monitoring comprise, and what happens if that monitoring reveals problems very early on? Will he have to wait until the review after 12 months, or will he be able to implement impacts and analysis from the monitoring?
Chris Bryant
That is a fair point. We have tried to do two things. In key areas, we want to ensure that people can maintain historical trade flows, so we need to monitor how those trade flows are progressing. We can do that with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on a regular basis. If there is a sudden spike, we may need to address it. There may be special events, like the fire in Port Talbot the other day; that has not presented the kind of problem we thought it might, so we have been able to stick with our plans. Speciality Steel, for instance, has not been able to get up and running yet, which is why we adjusted some of the codes. We always reserve the right to make a significant intervention during that period if we absolutely have to, but I want to provide industry with as much predictability as possible. That is why we are talking about a one-year review.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the ministerial team’s engagement with Members to understand the concerns of our businesses. I have previously raised the challenges faced by downstream producers in my Black Country constituency. Pargat Housewares, which uses steel suitable for kitchenware, was facing a 60% hike in raw materials costs, and Hadley Industries is already looking to reduce headcount, which means knock-on effects in its supply chain. I welcome the increase in quotas and the removal of the majority of categories from the scope of the measure, but will the Minister explain how the Department has been and will be working with individual businesses to understand their concerns and support them going forward?
Chris Bryant
I have never known a policy area that so depends on the granular detail of individual companies and individual codes and categories of different steel. I talked to people from one business who were very concerned at the beginning of our conversation, because they thought that all their steel imports would be in scope and would be tariffed at 50%, but it turned out that the business did not actually use a category of steel that is in scope. That is why I am keen to go through the fine detail with Members where I can. My hon. Friend has raised the issue of ceramics and bakeware, and I am happy to have that conversation. If he wants to come along and talk with officials on Monday afternoon, that would be great.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I congratulate the Minister and his departmental colleagues on listening to the representations that were made. It is worth reinforcing that some 75% of steel imports are not impacted by the measure, which is good news. Does the Minister agree that the reason we are in this pickle is that the previous Administration had no steel strategy for 14 years and allowed the whole industry to collapse by 66%?
Chris Bryant
I think I am going to have to resign, because I agree with every single word of what the hon. Gentleman just said.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and particularly the decision to remove products where there is no domestic production. That will make a real difference to specialist manufacturers in Calder Valley, but they are understandably worried about what the tariffs will mean for their businesses. Will the Minister clarify whether galvanised wire products, which I have written to the Secretary of State about, are covered by the exemption? Companies in my constituency such as Siddall & Hilton, which makes specialist fencing, cannot get UK-produced supply and therefore get inputs from the EU, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments, and I know that he has raised some of those issues with the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North. It is probably best that we go through the granular detail of the particular company’s concerns.
Let me also correct the idea of there being an exemption. There is not an exemption; it is just that we are including some categories of steel in the trade measure and not including others. As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) just said, nearly 75%—it is actually 74%—of steel imports are not covered by the trade measure at all.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I too am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for the flexibility they have shown so far, and I will come and see him on Monday. First, could he be a little clearer about how dynamic he will be on quotas? At first look to me and the businesses in my constituency that are concerned, some of the quotas look a bit tight. If there was a sudden spike in prices following the imposition, can he move quickly and, if so, how quickly, because obviously decisions are made with a long-term view? Secondly, he said that without these quotas the UK would become a dumping ground for cheap steel. We may well now become a dumping ground for cheap fabricated products, so what will he do on fabricated products alongside this? Thirdly, this means that the Government will collect millions of pounds from British businesses importing steel that will still import above the quota. What will happen to that money?
Chris Bryant
The last question is a clever one—that is a matter for the Chancellor, however. On fabricated steel, the right hon. Member makes a good point, which I know several people made in the urgent question last week, or whenever it was—I was in Türkiye trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with it and, in fact, talking a bit about steel as well. It is a good point, and we will look at that. I do not want to overpromise on the idea that at the moment, if there is a fluctuation in prices that we as a Government will suddenly move in and change all the quotas, because predictability and continuity are often as important for business as anything else so they know the terms under which they are operating, so I do not want to overpromise. Our main point is that we will do a review after a year, and we will engage with everybody all the way through.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Member says from a sedentary position that nothing will change. I am just trying to moderate his expectations of change, but obviously, if there is a very significant, exceptional moment then we may need to act. The kind of thing I am talking about is speciality steel, for instance. When we started this process, we thought that it would be up and running again. It is not now, and that is one of the reasons that we have been able to change those categories’ quotas. But I do not want to give the expectation that the moment somebody experiences some concern that we will suddenly change, because in the end, as I say, there are difficult trade-offs here and we want to ensure that UK production of steel survives and grows.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement—he is very much the Government’s man of steel. Protecting British steelmaking capacity means we will have a reliable supply for years to come, but can the Minister confirm that this announcement is good news for downstream producers in my constituency, such as MRI Fabrications, LWC Engineering and—my favourite—the Harlow Group, all based in Harlow, for today and years to come?
Chris Bryant
If I had a bit of advice to my hon. Friend—I know he is relatively new to the House—I would not have favourites in one’s own constituency because then the other people who are not your favourites end up being very irritated with you. I have 14 rugby clubs and have to be very careful. He makes a good point. Just to deal with the individual companies, it would probably be a good idea if he came along on Monday afternoon. I am making a lot of dates, aren’t I?
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. When the Minister came here with the statement the other day, I asked him about Thames Covers, a boat fitters in my constituency which relies on stainless steel tubing, and got lots of warm words about, “We’re going to go away and consult.” I listened to his statement today and read it in great detail. Will stainless steel tubing now not be hit by an additional 50% price, which is what its suppliers are telling it? I am seeing Thames Covers tomorrow at 2.15 pm. I would love to be able to give the business a definitive answer.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that the hon. Member will have to come along on Monday afternoon—I do not want to give him a false or inaccurate answer now—or if he wants to grab me afterwards with officials, I will try to give him the precise answer.
I just want to make it absolutely clear because some people have gained the impression that all their steel will automatically immediately—if it is imported—be subject to 50% tariffs. I know the hon. Member understands this, but some other people have clearly misunderstood. It is only the out of quota stuff that is subject to 50% tariffs. In many categories—I am not sure about the precise category that his company uses—the quota is bigger than historical trade flows. In other words, there is no reason why it should be affected, but I do not want to give him a false impression, so I am happy to either see him at the back of the Chamber afterwards or on Monday afternoon.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I am going to change my question on the hoof based on what the Minister just said. Does he share my concern for the smaller steel fabricators that cannot buy large bulk orders of steel? They are reliant on being able to order when an order comes in for them. I have a steel fabricator in my constituency called S-FABS. It is a fifth generation business, and it is telling me that this is the hardest it has ever had it—it is worse than covid. It is not sure that it will be able to survive because overseas manufacturers will just start fabricating steel to avoid the tariffs. Can he please reflect on the effect on the small and medium-sized fabricators that currently feel like the strategy is all to protect British Steel, and they are behind that, but to the detriment of those downstream providers?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady is not the only person who has raised this point about fabricated steel with me, and it is one of the things that we do have to watch very closely. It is one of the things we will be looking at from day one. I cannot promise that that means we will suddenly include fabricated steel, but it is something we have to be careful of. I think only Canada has introduced a similar measure in relation to fabricated steel, but its steel measure is much tougher than ours and covers, I think, more categories. That is why it has also introduced a compensation scheme. I hope we will not need to go down that route. When some countries have suggested increasing fabricated steel, that provides a different incentive, which can be just as counterproductive, so again, there will be trade-offs in that sphere. Again, I am happy to meet her on Monday afternoon if she wants to come along.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and his clear commitment to defining the issues and making things better for us. It is a real pleasure to hear a statement with so much positivity. I want to ask a question about Northern Ireland. Will the Minister acknowledge the severe, disproportionate impact that stringent steel tariffs and red tape are having on manufacturing and emergency businesses across Northern Ireland? Will he commit to providing immediate financial mitigation or regular flexibility for Northern Ireland steel users, thereby ensuring that our foundational industries are not penalised by mainland trade policies and the complexities of the Windsor framework?
Chris Bryant
I have pages and pages on the Windsor framework in relation to this somewhere, but I have only two words on it here. Apart from anything else, part of our negotiations with the European Union had to be about how we ensure proper provision for Northern Ireland. When the EU announces its measures on Monday, I hope that the hon. Member will be pleased with where we have got to on all that. He asked about financial mitigation, which I think means compensation. I am afraid that I am not able to offer that; I want to be very straight with him.
As I say, there are trade-offs here. We need to ensure that we have a strong steel sector. I was thinking about my two grandfathers. One grandfather was a naval draughtsman and an architect on Clydeside. My other grandfather worked on the railways in the docks in Cardiff. For both of them, steel was absolutely essential. I am sure when they were working on Clydeside or in Cardiff, they would have expected all the steel to have been made in the United Kingdom. If we do not take this step today, we will find that we will not have any British Steel at all, and that is why we are keen to take the necessary and, I believe, proportionate steps that we are taking.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that in a former life, the Minister was punctilious about standards in this House, so I seek your advice as to how he may correct the record. He referred to a letter that I believe he said his office had received this morning or yesterday. In fact, the Department will have received copies of two letters, one which was sent a week ago, not on my behalf, but on behalf of hundreds of thousands of small manufacturing businesses that were desperately worried, with one week to go before the tariffs. There was a second letter on Tuesday, jointly from me and the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), again, sent on behalf of this vital industry, which keeps us all safe. I have not yet received a reply to either of those. I would not necessarily have expected to, but it would not be right for the record to reflect that he had only received the letter this morning.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The Minister is in his place and may wish to respond.
Chris Bryant
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the correction. I am terribly sorry; I was only referring to the latter letter. We have had a lot of letters on this, and I appreciate that lots of Members have written to Ministers about it. We tried to respond as quickly as we could, once we had settled the final quotas. I wanted to come to the House to be clear on precisely what we have done, in order to meet some of the concerns. I do try to answer my letters as punctiliously as I can. You do not have to have been a priest in the Church of England to do that, though God is working Her purpose out, as year succeeds to year.
Digital Trade Agreement Negotiations: Malaysia
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The UK and Malaysia have today announced the launch of negotiations on a new digital trade deal that will support growth and back British jobs.
Digital trade agreements can provide the benefits of digital trade chapters in free trade agreements while remaining agile, flexible and fast to agree and implement. In this case the UK and Malaysia already enjoy the free trade benefits of membership of the CPTPP so this would add a new set of benefits.
Today’s announcement marks the next step in making the UK a global hub for services and digital trade. Digital trade can open new markets for businesses by reducing the costs of delivering goods and services, supporting jobs and productivity.
The UK is a world leader in digital trade and has a growing trading relationship with Malaysia, worth £6.4 billion in 2025. In 2023, the UK exported £730 million digitally delivered services to Malaysia. The OECD estimates that in 2022, exports to Malaysia supported 31,100 UK jobs.
Its rapidly expanding digital economy makes Malaysia an ambitious, like-minded partner, with opportunity to support UK growth.
The DTA aims to make digital trade with Malaysia easier, cheaper and more secure through cross-border data flows. Other potential benefits include reducing paperwork and border friction through digital systems, and guaranteeing strong protections for personal data, intellectual property, online consumers and cyber-security.
The deal could strengthen international digital and tech co-operation by supporting responsible innovation in areas like AI and data. It could also create new partnerships that boost efficient supply chains, infrastructure and global competitiveness.
[HCWS130]
CPTPP Accession: Entry into Force with Mexico
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
From today, the terms of the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership have entered into force with Mexico. This follows Mexico’s recent ratification of the UK’s accession, and it means that UK traders are now able to trade with Mexico under the terms of the CPTPP for the first time. This supports the Government growth mission by providing tariff benefits, new digital provisions and additional market access beyond the current bilateral UK-Mexico FTA, with benefits for UK traders and consumers.
Benefits for UK traders and consumers
British farmers and food and drink manufacturers will benefit from improved opportunities to trade with Mexico. For example, chocolate producers will benefit from zero tariffs when exporting to Mexico, compared with tariffs of up to around 25% at present.
In addition, cheese exporters will receive tariff-free access to Mexico through a shared quota, with further shared duty-free quotas also available for other dairy products.
There will also be opportunities for pork sectors, with duty-free access for pork from day one.
Lower tariffs on Mexican exports, including honey, chocolate, asparagus, sweetcorn and orange juice, may also benefit British consumers if those reductions are passed on through lower prices.
The UK’s current trading arrangements with Mexico contain only limited commitments on temporary business travel. By contrast, CPTPP includes more comprehensive commitments for UK businesspersons, including the ability for dependants to accompany intra-corporate transferees, as well as commitments covering investors, independent professionals and contractual service suppliers for the first time.
UK financial services firms will also benefit from greater legal certainty when trading with clients based in Mexico, including when providing portfolio management and e-payment card services.
For UK traders exporting to Mexico, CPTPP introduces new digital trade and supply chain benefits which do not exist in our current bilateral agreement. It supports cross-border data flows, protects source code and cryptography, and prohibits unjustified data localisation requirements, giving businesses greater certainty, security and lower compliance costs.
It also allows cumulation of content from other CPTPP countries, increasing flexibility and strengthening export resilience for industries with complex supply chains, including in the automotive industry.
Other CPTPP updates
Mexico is the tenth country with whom the UK’s CPTPP accession has entered into force, out of a possible 11. The UK also welcomes the progress Canada is making on the legislation required to implement the UK’s CPTPP accession protocol. The UK currently expects this to be completed later this year, and we look forward to the agreement entering into force with Canada at the appropriate moment.
As the trade strategy outlines, CPTPP is a “living” agreement, intended to evolve with the wider global economy. Earlier this month, on 6 May, CPTPP parties substantially concluded Costa Rica’s accession negotiations following 18 months of negotiations, demonstrating that CPTPP remains open and dynamic. The UK also remains closely engaged in the recently launched accession process for Uruguay.
I look forward to keeping you updated on future CPTPP developments.
[HCWS127]
South Korean Hot-rolled Steel Plate: TRA Recommendation
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
On 6 June 2025, the UK’s Trade Remedies Authority initiated a dumping investigation on hot-rolled steel plate of South Korean origin. During the investigation, the TRA recommended to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade that a provisional anti-dumping measure be applied for up to six months at duties of between 11.63% and 29.12%, dependent upon the South Korean exporter. This recommendation was made on the basis that the TRA provisionally determined that two domestic producers, Spartan Steel and Tata Steel UK, have been injured by dumping of hot-rolled steel plate of South Korean origin.
While the Secretary of State recognises the TRA’s provisional findings, he has also considered wider matters in the public interest. From 1 July 2026, the Government will implement a new steel trade measure by preserving vital steel production for critical national infrastructure and defence. The application of this measure may impact the need for a provisional anti-dumping measure, and this is a point that the TRA did not consider in its recommendation, which preceded the announcement of the new steel measure.
In this context, and mindful of the impact on the wider UK-South Korea trade relationship, the Secretary of State is satisfied that, in this unique situation, it is not in the public interest to apply the provisional measure.
The Secretary of State’s decision here does not affect any future decision he may take upon receipt of the TRA’s final recommendation regarding this investigation.
The Government will publish a public notice on 9 June 2026 to give effect to this decision
[HCWS102]
Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I have today laid before the House documents the Government have identified that the House required in the 24 February 2026 Humble Address seeking all papers relating to the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment in 2001, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and the advice of officials and Ministers on his suitability and due diligence and vetting conducted.
This statement explains the Government’s approach to finding these historic documents, provides an overview of what has been found, explains the approach taken in releasing information and answers the House’s specific questions on due diligence and national security vetting.
It has not been a straightforward task to identify the historic documents requested by the House. Twenty-five years ago, Government Departments were largely operating paper-based record keeping systems. We have had to track down files that might potentially contain relevant information, recall these from storage and search files manually.
An added complication lies in changes to the machinery of Government. In the period under consideration, the Government’s work to support trade and investment was led by British Trade International, headed by chief executive Sir David Wright. BTI reported to a board chaired by the Minister of State for International Trade and Investment, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, and was accountable both to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
A committee of senior officials, the Royal Visits Committee, provided advice to Ministers and the sovereign on inward and outward official overseas visits by members of the royal family. At the time this was chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.
The search focused on files from 1999 to 2001 held by the most relevant Departments—the Department for Business and Trade, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Defence, and Cabinet Office.
Today, The Government have published 11 documents that show how the role was created and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed. These include:
the formal appointment proposal to Ministers;
evidence that Ministers were content with the proposal;
internal communications to all trade staff about the role;
media and press briefing and question and answer materials.
From 1976 to 2001, the Duke of Kent served as vice-chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board and then British Trade International, undertaking more than 60 overseas visits in support of British exports. As he approached retirement from that role in 2001, consideration was given to how best to continue the engagement of the royal family in trade and investment promotion work.
In February 2000, Sir David Wright put a formal appointment proposal to Ministers, explaining that the Duke of Kent intended to withdraw from his role supporting trade promotion overseas and it was Her late Majesty’s wish that the Duke of York should succeed him. He set out a proposed role encompassing two or three trade promotion visits overseas per year, visits to UK regions and receiving prominent overseas trade visitors in the UK.
The documents show that officials and Ministers had been considering expanding the role of the Duke of York for some time prior to the formal proposal. In January 2000, the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, agreed that greater use should be made of the then Duke of York.
Media reporting indicates that the Palace announced in December 2000 that the Duke of Kent was stepping down and that the Duke of York would assume his role.
Internal BTI papers illustrate how the proposed role was developed and communicated to staff and to the media, and record that an initial familiarisation programme ran from April 2001, with the role formally announced in October 2001. Documents confirm the role was unpaid, with costs associated with official duties met through standard departmental arrangements and that systems were put in place to oversee the role. Officials established formal processes to assess and approve engagements, taking account of strategic trade and investment priorities, cost, and other Government priorities.
It is a long-standing practice across successive Administrations that when the Government respond to a Humble Address motion they have a responsibility to consider whether it is in the public interest to place information into the public domain. This is done using the principles of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and in line with the ministerial code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability, passed by both Houses in 1997.
In line with this, we have redacted documents to remove the bare minimum of personal information and information whose release would prejudice international relations. We have consulted the police to ensure that the release of information does not prejudice their investigation. We have also considered carefully the redaction of information relating to royal communications, mindful of the long-standing convention of confidentiality, which is codified under the Freedom of Information Act, in relation to communications with and on behalf of the sovereign. In this exceptional circumstance, the Government are releasing royal communications about the former Duke of York’s appointment as special representative. Communications with the royal household on unrelated topics have been redacted.
I can assure the House that we have proceeded on the basis of the maximum transparency, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Humble Address.
We have found no evidence that a formal due diligence or vetting process was undertaken. There is also no evidence that this was considered. This is understandable since this new appointment was a continuation of the royal family’s involvement in trade and investment promotion work following the Duke of Kent’s decision to relinquish his duties as vice-chairman of the Overseas Trade Board.
The Government are co-operating fully with Thames Valley Police on their investigation into Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor and possible misconduct in public office.
[HCWS57]