World Trade Organisation: 14th Ministerial Conference
Chris Bryant Excerpts(3 days, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The World Trade Organisation’s 14th ministerial conference took place in Yaoundé, Cameroon, between Thursday 26 March and Sunday 29 March 2026. I attended alongside the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle).
MC14 took place against a complex geopolitical backdrop and in an uncertain global economic climate. The UK worked shoulder to shoulder with a wide range of members to deliver the change the WTO needs. I joined the UK delegation as one of the six reform facilitators.
I was disappointed that, despite these efforts, members were unable to agree substantial multilateral outcomes at this conference.
While some outcomes were agreed—recommitting to fisheries subsidies negotiations; reaffirming work to support small and vulnerable economies; and moving discussions on proposals around sanitary and phytosanitary and technical barriers to trade to technical committees—they were high-level and procedural.
Work will continue in Geneva on outcomes that were close to agreement, with the May general council providing the first opportunity to assess what might be possible with the membership.
These are outcomes on areas of importance to the UK and global trade more broadly, including setting a path forward on WTO reform, and extension of the moratorium on e-commerce, which keeps digital trade costs low by banning customs duties on electronic transmissions such as software and video streaming.
The lack of further agreement in Yaoundé meant that the e-commerce moratorium fell, as did the moratorium on non-violation situation complaints regarding the trade-related aspects of intellectual property agreement. As a stopgap, to reduce the uncertainty of the lapse of the e-commerce moratorium for UK businesses, the UK has joined 22 other members committing to continuing the e-commerce moratorium between signatories until the next general council this May. This is in addition to the permanent moratorium between the UK and 65 other members provided by the plurilateral agreement on e-commerce, which was launched at MC14, and on which the UK was a key partner in securing a positive outcome.
Despite the challenging environment and disappointing multilateral outcomes, the UK remained a constructive partner throughout and bolstered its international influence and reputation, both on WTO reform, where I drove development of text, and on plurilateral agreements, where the UK joined innovative approaches to implement the agreements on e-commerce and investment facilitation for development. The ECA is a significant step forward in global digital trade, cutting costs and lowering barriers for businesses in the UK and worldwide. It is projected to increase participants’ GDP by up to 0.43%. The IFDA, between 129 members, will make it easier to invest in developing countries, and is expected to increase global GDP by up to 1%. These agreements are a major milestone for the WTO, demonstrating the impact plurilaterals can have.
I was pleased that the UK also announced £13 million in technical assistance and capacity building support ahead of MC14 to enable developing economies to participate in the global trading system, and a further £1 million is already committed to the WTO fisheries fund.
The UK will continue to work with those willing to make progress where we need it. This includes seeking a comprehensive e-commerce moratorium, and actively driving WTO reform in Geneva. The UK’s communication on WTO reform (6 March) sets out our vision for a more relevant, flexible and accessible WTO. We will work to pursue this, including by addressing trade imbalances by tackling market distorting practices, establishing new rules on contemporary areas like digital and environment, and achieving a full-functioning dispute settlement system to ensure accountability. This will complement our ongoing work beyond the WTO pursuing high-quality FTAs that support businesses, workers and consumers, while expanding our network of partnerships across global markets.
[HCWS1529]
Call for Input: New Powers to Protect UK from Acts of Adverse Economic Pressure
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
As an open trading nation, the UK thrives on its connections with the world. International trade fuels economic growth in the UK, and delivers significant benefits for businesses, workers and consumers alike. However, rising geopolitical tensions and growing uncertainty are reshaping global trade dynamics. Unfair trading practices are emerging that disrupt supply chains and distort competition, sometimes aimed at forcing changes in law or policy.
When supply chains are disrupted, it is working people who feel it first—in higher prices at the checkout, in uncertainty about their jobs, and in the disruption to the businesses and industries their communities depend on.
That is why we recognised these risks in our Trade Strategy, published last year. We are already taking action to make our economy more resilient and secure, and we work closely with allies through the G7, the World Trade Organisation and the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership to challenge unfair practices wherever they occur. Now we are asking whether additional powers are needed, and on Thursday 9 April we launched a call for input to consider the case for developing new powers to reinforce our ability to respond to acts of adverse economic pressure against the UK.
We are seeking to understand whether the UK Government should strengthen the UK’s economic security and resilience against acts of adverse economic pressure, and if so how, while supporting growth, competitiveness, and our international obligations. This call for input will be open for 10 weeks and will aim to gather views from a broad range of stakeholders on the opportunities, risks, and implementation considerations associated with taking new powers. This includes perspectives from businesses, industry, consumer organisations, other representative and sector bodies, as well as insights from think-tanks, academics, the devolved Governments, Crown dependencies, and overseas territories.
We welcome the Business and Trade Committee’s recent inquiry into economic security and their agreement that the Government should explore new powers in this area.
To support this, my Department has published a summary of the Government’s existing powers in this area and set out the case for considering new powers, including what form such powers could take. A copy of the call for input document has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available on www.gov.uk.
This is about one thing: protecting working people from economic shocks they did nothing to cause. If new powers are required, we will introduce them. We will always try diplomacy first. But if that fails, families, businesses, and communities across the UK deserve to know that their Government have the tools to stand up for them. We are not changing who we are as a trading nation; we are making sure we can stay who we are, even when others play by different rules. This is what this call for input is about, and that is how we deliver growth that works for everyone.
[HCWS1491]
Switzerland Enhanced Free Trade Agreement Negotiations: Round 10
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The 10th round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement with Switzerland took place in Geneva between 9 and 13 March 2026.
The round followed the Secretary of State for Business and Trade’s meeting with his counterpart, Federal Councillor Guy Parmelin, in January 2026 at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Strengthening the UK’s partnership with Switzerland reflects the UK Government’s commitment to economic growth with our 10th largest trading partner, a relationship worth £49.0 billion in the four quarters ending Q3 2025.
In 2020 our trading relationship with Switzerland supported 130,000 UK services jobs across finance, consultancy and legal sectors services, transport, and other key sectors:
https://data-explorer.oecd.org
However, the current UK-Swiss trade agreement, signed in 2019 and based largely on an EU-Swiss agreement from 1972, focuses mainly on goods. It does not include services, investment, digital or data, even though services account for over 60% of UK trade with Switzerland. Switzerland is the UK’s sixth largest export market for services:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/uktotaltradeallcountriesseasonallyadjusted
The enhanced FTA aims to provide long-term certainty for UK services firms, locking in access to the Swiss market, ensuring the free flow of data and securing business travel arrangements on a permanent basis.
The latest round saw progress in a number of areas:
Services and Investment
Sessions took place on services and investment, with discussions focused on market access, including financial services.
Telecoms
Discussions were held on a telecommunications chapter, with progress made across a number of areas to minimise barriers and support increased trade and connectivity.
Digital
Further discussions were held on digital trade. Negotiations will continue with the aim of delivering robust outcomes for businesses in important areas, including preventing data localisation, as well as on the topics of source code and cryptography.
Intellectual Property
Negotiations continued on intellectual property rights with the aim of agreeing a comprehensive framework for the protection of intellectual property.
Goods
Discussions continued on goods market access.
Next steps on FTA negotiations
The Government will only ever sign a trade agreement that aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors, alongside protections for the national health service. Ministers will continue to update Parliament on the progress of negotiations.
[HCWS1435]
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor: Response to Humble Address Motion
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I am updating the House on the Government’s work to comply with the Humble Address relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, approved on 24 February 2026, and on the steps being taken to identify and prepare the relevant material.
The Department for Business and Trade is leading the Government response. We are committed to complying fully with Parliament’s request while avoiding the publication of information that could prejudice the live Thames Valley police investigation into Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct in public office. A dedicated team has been established to co-ordinate this work across the Department and Whitehall.
From 1976 to 2001 the Duke of Kent served as vice-chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board and later British Trade International. In this role he was part of the senior leadership of the UK’s official trade-promotion body and conducted more than 60 overseas visits to promote trade. Initial searches confirm that it was agreed that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, on retiring from the Navy, would continue to support the late Queen in her duties and take on a specific role created for him reflecting the Royal Family’s long-standing involvement in trade promotion. The role was unpaid, but British Trade International paid for his travel and related expenses. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor did not take over the Duke of Kent’s board role.
We have begun searching historical departmental records and have commissioned parallel searches in other Departments, in particular the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Office. We have established a process with the Cabinet Office and Thames Valley police to ensure that any material released does not prejudice the police investigation.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor took up his role as special representative for trade and investment in October 2001. At that time, Government work on exports and investment was led by British Trade International, reporting jointly to the Department for Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The records from this period are largely paper-based. Subsequent machinery of Government changes—including the formation of UK Trade & Investment in 2003, its merger into the Department for International Trade in 2016, and the creation of the Department for Business and Trade in 2023—mean that relevant records span multiple legacy bodies and formats. We are working through these complexities in order to comply with the Humble Address.
I understand and share colleagues’ desire for relevant information to be provided to Parliament as quickly as possible. I will continue to keep the House updated on progress.
[HCWS1439]
Trade Envoy Programme: Appointment
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The Secretary of State has today made the following appointment to the United Kingdom’s trade envoy programme.
The United Kingdom’s trade envoys are important to this Government’s growth agenda. They support Ministers to deliver trade and investment outcomes within the industrial and trade strategies and attract foreign direct investment across UK regions.
Working in close partnership with our ambassadors, high commissioners, and His Majesty’s trade commissioners, trade envoys support deeper bilateral trade relationships, lead trade missions, welcome inward delegations, and address market access challenges to ensure British firms can compete and succeed.
The role as a United Kingdom trade envoy is unpaid and voluntary with cross-party membership from both Houses.
The Secretary of State is pleased to appoint:
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Japan.
Today’s appointment means there are now 31 trade envoys focusing on 72 markets.
[HCWS1427]
Free Trade Agreement: Turkey
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The fourth round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement with Turkey took place in London during the week commencing 23 February 2026.
Negotiations were productive, with positive progress being made in a number of areas:
Trade in services
Constructive discussions took place across a range of technical areas, including investment, digital trade, telecommunications, cross-border trade in services, the movement of business persons, and legal services. Both sides continued to engage productively, building on progress made in previous rounds.
Trade in goods
Detailed discussions took place across trade in goods, customs and trade facilitation, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Negotiators continued to discuss proposals and relevant data with a view to unlocking commercially meaningful opportunities for UK exporters. On customs and trade facilitation, discussions focused on strengthening co-operation between customs authorities to support predictable, transparent and efficient border procedures. On sanitary and phytosanitary measures, both sides continued exchanges on practical co-operation to facilitate safe trade in agrifood products while maintaining and upholding the UK’s high standards.
Additional areas
Substantial progress was made across a number of additional chapters, including intellectual property, Government procurement, anti-corruption, labour, environment, state-owned enterprises and dispute settlement. Both sides continued constructive engagement on regulatory and institutional provisions to support the effective implementation of any future agreement.
Economic growth is our first mission in Government, and FTAs have an important role to play in achieving this. A stronger trade relationship with Turkey will support jobs and prosperity in the UK, with trade between the two totalling £28.3 billion in the 12 months ending in September 2025, representing an increase of 5.8% from the previous 12 months:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/697a37dc3c71d838df6bd406/turkey-trade-and-investment-factsheet-2026-02-02.pdf
The UK will only ever sign a trade agreement that aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors.
The fifth round of negotiations is expected to take place before the summer. Ministers will update Parliament on the progress of discussions with Turkey as negotiations continue.
[HCWS1415]
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
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
Promoting Scottish industry overseas is one of our prime objectives. Whether it is opening up new markets such as India for Scotch whisky, securing new beef opportunities in the United States of America, securing contracts for Scottish steel in new bridges in Ukraine, or promoting financial services around the world, we are on the case. I have even seen Tunnock’s Caramels in LuLu in Doha.
Frank McNally
With up to £8.2 billion of private investment, the Lanarkshire AI growth zone delivered by this Labour Government represents one of the largest industrial investments in the history of Scotland. At its heart is a partnership between Lanarkshire’s own DataVita and the American cloud computing company CoreWeave. Such partnerships are critical to supporting the industries of the future, so what further steps can my hon. Friend take to promote Scottish companies overseas to secure such high-quality jobs and deliver even stronger growth?
Chris Bryant
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done to make sure that the UK Government have delivered in his constituency. I am glad that he has raised the Lanarkshire AI growth zone, because it is really important in trying to make sure that the industries of the future are at the heart of the jobs of the future in Scotland. I look forward to the SNP welcoming this in the next few moments.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, I will always welcome the fact that Scotland punches above its weight, whether it be industries abroad or investment in Scotland. Indeed, under the SNP, foreign direct investment has been higher in Scotland over the last 10 years than anywhere else in the UK outside of London—something I would expect the UK Government to also celebrate. Instead, we learned through a leaked memo this week that the Prime Minister told senior Ministers of the Government to go against the wishes of the Scottish Government when taking decisions. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister? Does he not agree that Scotland makes the best decisions when it is the people of Scotland who make those decisions, which will happen only when it becomes independent?
Chris Bryant
It is like an open goal, isn’t it, Mr Speaker? Sorry—you do not have a view.
I believe that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than by going it alone. That is why I am a passionate supporter of the Union. Of course there are specific things about the Scottish economy that we want to drive forward. For instance, 54% of Scottish exports go into the European Union. If we manage to secure the sanitary and phytosanitary deal that we are trying to negotiate with the EU at the moment, that will pay enormous dividends to Scotland that it would never secure were it entirely on its own. Separatism never works.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
We want to build new opportunities for start-ups and scale-ups to export around the world. That is why we are providing tailored market advice, free training through our business academy, export finance and support on the ground in international markets.
Rosie Wrighting
British fashion is recognised globally for its creativity. At the London Fashion Week just gone, designers such as Erdem, Tolu Coker and Simone Rocha showcased the very best of British talent. With international buyers up by 17%, we showed that we have not only the raw talent here, but the business minds to commercialise it internationally. What steps is the Department taking to help emerging British fashion brands translate that creativity into export growth and scale internationally?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a really good point by raising th4e example of London Fashion Week. She is quite right that lots of businesses in Northamptonshire are working in this field. One key thing we do through NEWGEN is to provide support to people—including, in fact, some of those she mentioned, such as Erdem and Simone Rocha—to start finding new export markets overseas. We send people to Paris Fashion Week and to Pitti Uomo, and our creative industries are a really important part of how we intend to build on that in the future. To use the name of another business in her constituency, I think Weetabix is based there—and we want everybody to have three Weetabix for breakfast so we can really export around the world.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
At the recent India AI summit, I was delighted to participate in an event, with the Deputy Prime Minister, highlighting the opportunities for British and Indian growing technology companies to do more in each other’s markets. I am looking forward to another such event in London in the coming weeks. Will the Minister join me in commending both our high commissioners—Their Excellencies Lindy Cameron and Vikram Doraiswami—for their steadfast commitment to strengthening the links between our two fantastic technology sectors?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. I noticed that he was commending the Government for securing the free trade agreement with India, which previous Governments were not able to secure, and he did so generously. Mr Speaker, I may have misled the House previously by suggesting that the India free trade agreement would enter into force this summer, because I am very hopeful that it will actually enter into force this spring.
The key thing is not just to have a free trade agreement, but to deploy it and make sure that businesses take advantage of that opportunity. Our two high commissioners—both in India and here—are absolutely essential to making that happen. I look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman to do that not only in India, but in Ukraine, as I note he has been appointed to help Zelensky’s Government with reconstruction in Ukraine. I am the Minister for Ukraine reconstruction, and I hope we can work together to achieve that, too.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
We all want innovative British companies not just to start up in Britain, but to scale up in Britain, too. I welcome the Minister’s previous comments, and actually his enthusiasm, for our most innovative companies. However, he will know that the Chancellor’s decision to cut venture capital trust rate relief will be very damaging. How does he explain the disconnect between his Department’s words and what the Chancellor is doing?
Chris Bryant
We are trying very much to focus on the key sectors where we know we can really deliver, which is precisely what bringing together the trade strategy, the small business strategy and the industrial strategy is designed to do. I was delighted to be at the security and policing trade event down in Farnborough yesterday, and it was fascinating to see the small companies—SMEs make up a lot of that sector—that have really been supported by different Departments, including the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Treasury, to scale up and take their product to market. I think I was able to persuade the Malaysian Government to secure quite a few contracts with British businesses as well.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but I asked specifically about VCT rate relief. The last time that rate relief was cut, under the last Labour Government, fundraising was cut by two thirds and it took a decade for that to recover in the sector. Specifically on VCT rate relief, which has been cut from 30% to 20%, will he commit to meeting the Venture Capital Trust Association, the industry body, and will he take its concerns to the Chancellor and ask her to reverse course?
Chris Bryant
Of course, I am happy to meet the industry body and listen to its concerns, as we do all the time. However, I just want to make the point that at the moment the DBT is concentrating on taking what we do well in this country and really ensuring we have an opportunity to do it even better. That focus is a key part of what our trade strategy, our small business strategy and our industrial strategy are all about.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I thank my hon. Friend for standing up for the business in her constituency, and she is absolutely right. The Trade Remedies Authority is investigating, as she knows, and I urge industry to participate in that, although I cannot comment on the precise details of the investigation because it might eventually come to my desk. Importantly, we need to make sure that dumping is not acceptable, because it makes it impossible for British businesses to prosper. We will do everything in our power to make sure that we use the remedies available to us to protect British businesses.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
For years scotch whisky has faced sky-high import tariffs in India—as high as 150%. The Scotch Whisky Association has described the tariff cuts as “transformational”, and the Scotch whisky industry supports thousands of jobs in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that the increased bilateral trade with India is set to grow the Scottish economy by £190 million a year and is a massive win for the whisky industry, West Dunbartonshire and Scotland?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I commend him for supporting his constituents. Equally importantly, there are many Scottish products in respect of which we need to ensure that British businesses can take the opportunities the India FTA affords, and build on those so that we can build strong British businesses. We also have geographical identification for Scotch whisky in Argentina. We need to build on these gains around the world.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Ionoptika, a fantastic local employer in Chandler’s Ford. It told me that UK small and medium-sized enterprises are being impacted by export licence turnaround times, which are taking up to six months for non-controlled goods. Will the Minister confirm when we will see a significant improvement in turnaround times?
Chris Bryant
I am happy to meet the hon. Member if she wants to take me through some of the specific issues in her constituency; I have done that for several hon. Members, and we had a roundtable last week to try to get the timelines down. Sometimes it is difficult. The median time in which we sort them out is 14 days, but if the hon. Member has problems, I am happy to tackle them with her.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
From Kingswood accountants to Automated Analytics and our young traders market, Doncaster is home to many businesses run by ambitious entrepreneurs. Will the Minister update the House on how Government support, such as the start-up loan scheme and the growth guarantee scheme, are helping young entrepreneurs and start-ups, and on what more we can do in this policy area?
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Last time we were here for Business and Trade questions, I asked about exports of paraquat—the use of which is forbidden here—to other countries, and I live in hope that I will get an answer to that question. To update the ministerial team, Syngenta—the company that makes paraquat—put out a press release on 3 March to say that it would stop production this year. May I therefore expand my previous question to ensure that the response includes the export of pesticides and other products whose use is banned in the UK?
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The UK economy needs more and more critical minerals, and in Cornwall we have loads of them. Private capital has flown into the duchy on the back of the Labour Government’s investments of about £100 million through the national wealth fund and the Kernow industrial growth fund, but will the Minister update the House on Government plans to unlock more private investment in our critical minerals sector to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
Let me be clear from the outset: we support this motion. Frankly, it is the least we owe the victims of the horrific abuse that was perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein and others—abuse that was enabled, aided and abetted by a very extensive group of arrogant, entitled and often very wealthy individuals in this country and elsewhere. It is not just the people who participated in the abuse; it is the many, many more who turned a blind eye, out of greed, familiarity or deference. To my mind, they too were complicit—just as complicit—and I welcome the reckoning that is coming to them now.
I doubt there is anyone in this House who is not shocked and appalled by the recent allegations. Colleagues and many civil servants have told me their own stories of their interactions with Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, and they all betray the same pattern: a man on a constant self-aggrandising and self-enriching hustle; a rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest, which he said he served, and his own private interest. I remember him coming to visit the Sea Cadets in Tonypandy. They were delighted and excited to meet a member of the royal family, but he insisted on coming by helicopter, unlike his mother, who came twice to the Rhondda and by car. He left early, and he showed next to no interest in the young people. That is, of course, not a crime, nor is arrogance—fortunately, I suppose. [Laughter.]
Of course, we knew much of what is now in the public domain a very long time ago. It is all very well for some of us to say, “If only we had known then what we know now,” but I am afraid that doesn’t wash with me. We did actually have plenty of warning. I called on the then Prime Minister David Cameron to dispense with the services of the then Duke of York in this Chamber on 28 February 2011 because of his close friendship with Saif Gaddafi—Gaddafi was just referred to—and the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni. I was rebuked by Speaker Bercow for doing so because
“references to members of the royal family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful”—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 35.]
I did not disagree with that ruling, nor would I ever disagree with a ruling from the Chair, as you know, Mr Speaker.
Chris Bryant
I am taking your advice, Mr Speaker: I am just ignoring that.
Over the next few days back in 2011, I repeatedly called for Andrew to be sacked in the public domain—on television, on radio and in newspaper articles—citing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the mysteriously excessive £15 million paid for his Sunninghill home and many other issues besides. I am afraid the wilful blindness of far too many at that time was absolutely spectacular, and it still angers me. The then Prime Minister, the then Home Secretary and many others in government defended Andrew time and time and time again. I was repeatedly told off, both in the Chamber and outside it.
The broadcaster John Humphrys actually told me on the “Today” programme on 7 March 2011—I think Members will be shocked by this—that Jeffrey Epstein was “not quite a paedophile”, drawing a distinction between sexual abuse of pre-pubescent and other children. Dominic Lawson, writing in The Sunday Times on 11 March, defended Andrew and made the same distinction between Epstein’s involvement with teenage girls and paedophilia, since, as he put it,
“none of the girls was pre-pubescent”,
although he did at least admit that both were “sordid and exploitative”. I gently suggest that that is the least of what we have seen.
Let me be absolutely clear. All of this happened after the photograph of Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre was published in The Mail on Sunday on 27 February 2011—it is after the allegations, not before.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I entirely agree with the Minister on the abhorrence of the comments made in the media back then. Does he agree that we still have a degree of that problem now, because often in the media we talk about “under-age girls” when actually we are talking about children, and we should ensure that when we talk about Epstein’s crimes, we talk about the children who were involved?
Chris Bryant
I agree 100%. I think we should also be referring to statutory rape, because that is what it is. Statutory rape is no better than any other kind of rape. It is rape—end of story.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Minister is speaking very powerfully about this issue and has one of the strongest track records in standing up on these types of issues. I have asked that the Government release the files concerning Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, or whatever his new name is, when he was a trade envoy. That request has been refused. Can the Minister review that decision and ensure that, in the new spirit of openness and transparency, those files are open for all to see?
Chris Bryant
I completely respect my hon. Friend. He has made that point several times, not only in the Chamber but also to me privately, and I agree with him: that is the direction of travel we are going in, which is why we agree with the Humble Address presented today. We are not standing in the way, and we will do everything we can to comply with that as fast as we possibly can. I will come on to a couple of caveats a bit later, but I just want to pursue the point about what we knew in the past.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) rightly said that Paul Flynn had a debate on 4 May 2011, to which he responded, standing in for the Minister responsible. However, Paul Flynn initiated another debate, on 17 March in Westminster Hall. It was granted to him by the Backbench Business Committee, which had been set up relatively recently. Because he was finding it very difficult to make any of the allegations that he wanted to make because of the rules of the House, he concluded that
“there really is no point in continuing”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]
The then Deputy Leader of the House, David Heath—who was another Liberal Democrat member of the Government at the time—made the point, which I think has been made by both Mr Bercow and you, Mr Speaker, that if there were a “substantive motion”, such comments could be made. It would be necessary to find a means of tabling such a motion, like the one that we are discussing today.
Following that, Paul Flynn tried to secure a substantive motion, but managed to secure only a motion for an Adjournment debate, on 4 May. He struggled again, and this is what he said:
“The Speaker would quite rightly abide by the rules of the House and tell me that I was not allowed to make any derogatory statements that might affect the envoy, his personality or his name. It is an illustration of how demeaned we are as politicians and Members of Parliament that I am allowed to make any points about the damage that is done only in an oblique way, by discussing the effects of the holder of the office, his role and the comments that are being made.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 647.]
Of course he was angry: he was furious. He wrote a great book about being an MP, which I commend to all hon. Members.
As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton knows, he responded to that debate. He said:
“I, for one, believe that the Duke of York does an excellent job as the UK’s special representative for international trade and investment. He promotes UK business interests around the world, and helps to attract inward investment.”
He continued at some length, and concluded:
“He has made a valuable contribution in developing significant opportunities for British business through the role, and continues to do so.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 649-650.]
Let me say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that if he had followed the debates in the public domain at the time he would, I think, have known better than to make those comments.
Ed Davey
The Minister knows that I apologised for making that comment, having taken a brief from someone else. I really wish that I had not uttered those words, because I am thinking about the victims, and I have praised the Minister for the role that he took. I hope he will acknowledge that two months after that debate Andrew left the role, and it was right that he did. I was not privy to those discussions, but the Government did get rid of him.
Chris Bryant
Yes, he left his post in, I believe, July 2011. It could not have come soon enough for many of us, and it is a regret to many that the Government were not able to listen faster and act faster at that time.
What this whole sorry saga shows is that deference can be a toxic presence in the body politic. Of course we always seek to respect others, and we look for the best in others. There is another instance in that Adjournment debate that illustrates the generosity that we often show. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), whom I told that I was going to raise this, and who is a gentleman to his fingertips and always a very magnanimous fellow, asked:
“Does the Minister agree that one reason why the Duke of York has considerable credibility is his distinguished record as a former member of the Fleet Air Arm who gave valuable service in the Falklands war? That shows a degree of commitment over and above any inherited responsibilities that he might be considered to have.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 650.]
Of course I understand the point that the right hon. Member was making back then, but the fear is that when deference tips over into subservience it can be terribly dangerous, because the victims are not heard, respected or understood in the same way as those with grand titles, and that—as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said—has implications for this House. The conduct of business in the House is entirely a matter for you, Mr Speaker, interpreting “Erskine May” and the Standing Orders with the Clerks. I only repeat the words of Paul Flynn in 2011, when he denounced what he called
“censorship on hon. Members discussing an issue of great importance”.—[Official Report, 17 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 156WH.]
I know that you too, Mr Speaker, would want to denounce such censorship.
Let me issue one caveat about the motion. The Government will of course comply with the terms of the Humble Address in full—as I have said, we support the motion—but, as the House will know, there is a live police investigation of the former Duke of York following his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The House will also be aware that following that arrest on 19 February, Buckingham Palace issued a statement on behalf of the King. His Majesty emphasised that
“the law must take its course”,
and that the Palace would provide its
“full and wholehearted support and co-operation”.
The statement concluded with a commitment that His Majesty and the royal family would continue in their duty and service to the nation, and I am sure the whole House will support that sentiment.
As the police have rightly said, it is absolutely crucial that the integrity of their investigation is protected, and now that these proceedings are under way, it would be wrong for me to say anything that might prejudice them. Nor will the Government be able to put into the public domain anything that is required by the police for them to conduct their inquiries unless and until they are satisfied. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will agree with that point.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything that the Minister is saying, but what is worrying quite a lot of us, in relation not just to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor but to Mandelson, is that because of the ongoing police investigations and because the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly, it may be years before we see any of these papers. I would like an assurance from the Government that—notwithstanding what the Minister has just said about the police investigation—they will do their utmost to ensure that there is full transparency, because scandals are made much worse by any sense of a cover-up.
Chris Bryant
I could not agree more. I want to ensure that we move as fast as we possibly can, but I also want to ensure that justice happens, and I do not want to do anything that would undermine the police investigations. I hope that the police will be able to move as swiftly as possible, and we will certainly co-operate with them as swiftly as possible. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that most of the documents that might be envisaged are 25 years old—some are a bit more recent—they may be substantial in number, and many will be in hard copy. I hate to add to the right hon. Member’s fears about the speed with which things may happen, but I think we all want to ensure that we do all this in a proper fashion.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
May I ask for some clarification in respect of the police investigations? The Minister may have noted the intervention made by Gordon Brown on Sunday, when he asked constabularies to consider widening the probe on the basis of files that had been released as part of the data dump. I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to comment on what those police forces are planning to do or not to do, but one of the questions that have arisen is whether all Departments, including the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Transport, would co-operate fully with them in relation to anything that they might need. Can he assure me that every single Department, without fear or favour, will give them whatever they need if they wish to widen the investigation?
Chris Bryant
We will do two things. First, we will seek to comply with the Humble Address as soon as we possibly can, given the caveat that I have already issued about the police investigation. Secondly, we will ensure that every single part of Government co-operates entirely with Thames Valley police and with any other police forces, in respect of whatever they may be investigating. It is not for me, as a Minister, to instruct the police on what they should or should not investigate, or to point them in one direction or another. Former Prime Ministers have a different set of responsibilities. So the hon. Lady is right: I do not want to undermine the investigation, but I also do not want to delay it in any way.
Chris Bryant
I do not want to give way to every single Liberal Democrat Member, but I will, of course, give way to the hon. Lady.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister greatly. Does he agree that it is timely, right now, for the Government to press ahead with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill? Amendment 23, which is blocking everything at the moment, seems to present a way through, and to ensure not only that we have transparency and openness but that the Government, and other Members of the House, can be assured that anything that is subject to matters of intelligence or security—and, indeed, matters relating to the police investigation—will not be released. There is an answer in the Government’s hands, and I know not why they are waiting and waiting and waiting to get this sorted out.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady might have to repeat what she thinks the answer that thus far evades me might be.
Tessa Munt
I could talk to him about the whistleblowing Bill and the independent office of the whistleblower. People should be able to reveal what they know and should tell the truth. It is shocking that we have to have legislation to tell people to tell the truth, but all this falls under the same remit: people should be free to declare exactly what they know, papers should be released, and there should be an independent High Court judge—that is what happens at the moment and that is what is in amendment 23—who says what may and may not be released.
Mr Speaker
May I suggest that we shorten interventions, rather than make speeches?
Chris Bryant
I return to what I said earlier: we will put everything into the public domain when we can. I do not want to do so at a time that would make it impossible for the police to secure the proper processes that they need to be able to carry out. I am not sure that adding an intervening person helps that process, but I would be happy to listen, Mr Speaker, if the hon. Lady catches your eye later on in the debate. With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate as well, so I will be happy to answer lots of questions.
Daisy Cooper
Specifically on this point, I am grateful that the Minister is willing to comply with the terms of this motion and that he is trying to manage expectations about the speed with which the Government may act. None the less, he will know that there will still be some members of the public who will view that with some suspicion and alarm, worried that the Government might be trying to long-grass it or put it in the too-hard basket. Will the Minister commit, either now or by the end of the debate, to the Government regularly updating this House so that Opposition parties do not repeatedly have to bring Ministers to the House to answer urgent questions? Will he agree to set out, by the end of the debate, how often the Government would intend to inform the House in regular updates?
Chris Bryant
I am happy to commit to updating the House as often as I possibly can in a way that is informative to the House. The hon. Lady is quite right, however, that I am slightly trying to manage people’s expectations about timeliness, partly because of the quantity of material and partly because there is a live police investigation and I do not want to jeopardise that.
Chris Bryant
I will in a moment.
If there are things that are embarrassing to the Government, who cares? I want to make sure that we end up getting the proper justice that is necessary for the victims, and that means that we have to have a proper police procedure. If there are charges brought, that has to go through a judicial process as well and I do not want to undermine that. I am very happy, both privately and publicly, to update the House when I have anything possible to say.
I am trying to get to the end of my speech. People normally like it when I get to the end of my speech—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I have united the House, Mr Speaker, but I will give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister).
Jim Allister
I understand the concern about not treading upon the police investigation, but surely that investigation is about the conduct of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in the role, whereas this Humble Address is about the appointment and the process of appointment. Is there not a distinction there, which means that this Humble Address of itself should not unduly impede any police investigation or be hindered by it?
Chris Bryant
If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind, I will quite happily explain to him outside the Chamber precisely why I disagree with him. Again, if I were to explain more fully in the Chamber, that might not be very helpful to either the police or the criminal process. I am happy to explain to him outside the Chamber and I think he might come back in and agree with me.
Chris Bryant
I think he might. Just sometimes, he agrees with me, but not very often. Small mercies and all.
I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that the former Duke of York’s role as a special trade representative was very different to the one performed by the Government’s current trade envoys. That is often confused in the public discussion. Today, trade envoys are appointed by Ministers with a formalised set of rules of conduct, they are unpaid and they work with my Department on attracting and retaining inward investment, while supporting UK firms to take full advantage of new trade opportunities. They are all Members of either this House or another.
I have recently emphasised to all those trade envoys the importance of maximising the programme’s impact and ensuring that it aligns completely with the goals of our trade and industrial strategies. They are under the same obligations as Ministers in adhering to departmental restrictions, guidelines and confidentiality clauses, which are the same ones outlined in the ministerial code. In sum, trade envoys play an important role in boosting economic growth, delivering our industrial and trade strategies, and helping British businesses to export. I will stress this again: the role held by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was not a trade envoy position as we would understand it today. I am enormously grateful to today’s trade envoys who go beyond the call of duty in promoting UK plc. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s role was a separate one entitled UK special representative for international trade and investment.
There is unanimous agreement across this House that those who may be guilty of misconduct in public office should face the full force of the law. That applies to everyone, regardless of who they are or how they were appointed. This was a point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister prior to the news of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest. One of the core principles of our constitutional system is the rule of law. That means that everyone is equal under the law and nobody is above the law.
I share the anger and the disgust expressed by many at the alleged behaviour of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. What we are seeing now is a full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated by the police and in that investigation they will, of course, have the Government’s unwavering co-operation and support. Sometimes it feels to many members of our country that there is one rule for the rich and famous and another rule for the rest of us. Actually, there is only one rule: the rule of law.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing this debate. I should say at the outset that the Conservatives support the motion.
The truth is that the people who helped Jeffrey Epstein by supplying him with contacts and information were the people who enabled him to become powerful. Those people effectively enabled him to build his net of influence, his net of abuse. That network of power, in turn, enabled him to abuse more and more people, so it is quite right that this House is enabled to scrutinise what went on and how it went on.
I listened to the Minister’s remarks. I appreciate the way that he has approached this debate and the way that the Government will constructively co-operate with the terms of the Humble Address. However, this is the second occasion in only a few weeks when the Government have had to be brought here by Opposition parties under the terms of a Humble Address to disclose information that they quite obviously could have disclosed without the need for such an Address in the first place. I acknowledge the humility with which the Minister has approached the debate, but the Government as a whole could have been much more proactive on this issue right from the start. I also appreciate the humble way in which the Minister came to the House and reminded us that he had been right all along.
Alex Burghart
Very humble.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats referred to this as the first global political scandal. Indeed, it is a global political scandal whose tendrils have reached into the operation of many Governments across the west and the east. The fact that our allies in Poland have launched an intelligence investigation into Epstein’s links with Russia and that in the published Epstein papers it is clear that Jeffrey Epstein was supplying people at the very top end of Putin’s regime with sensitive information about the American leadership show that this is an international scandal and one in which our Government and our security services must play their part in uncovering things. However, I know that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is a lover of history, so I must gently take issue with his claim that this is the first global political scandal. I think of the Dreyfus affair, the XYZ affair and the Panama scandals—there have been many—but this is, to take his substantive point, a global political scandal.
I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we can only be, as a general point, supportive of the royal family’s role in promoting our country. The people who have witnessed the best of the royal family using their awesome soft power to support what we do best can only be in awe of the vast commitment they make to public service and the life of the country. Indeed, if it is the case, as reported in the press, that very senior members of the royal family expressed concerns about the appointment of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor in 2001, one can feel only enormous sympathy with them over what has subsequently come to light.
The revelations surrounding the relationship between Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Jeffrey Epstein, like those surrounding the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, and the arrest of both men on suspicion of misconduct in public office make it right that questions are asked and information is brought before the House. If one looks back to 2001, it is possible to identify the hand of Epstein in Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment. It is reported that Peter Mandelson first met Epstein in the summer of 2001; Mountbatten-Windsor had, I believe, first met Epstein in 1999. Shortly after Mandelson’s first meeting in October 2001, Mandelson was appointed as trade envoy.
Alex Burghart
The Minister shakes his head, so I will go through the chronology again for him—there is no harm in doing so.
Alex Burghart
Well, Hansard will show it—it may be that the numbers were jumbled up in the Minister’s head.
In the summer of 2001, Mandelson met Epstein for the first time; in October 2001, Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy. It is possible that Mandelson influenced that. As I said, Mountbatten-Windsor had met Epstein for the first time in 1999, so he was already an associate of Epstein. I am glad to have sorted that out—I can go through it again, but I am sure the Minister will be able to read about it tomorrow.
Chris Bryant
I urge hon. Members not to speculate on what the police might or might not be investigating.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for that reminder.
I have been astounded by the brilliance of the British media and the journalists who have sifted through thousands and thousands of documents from the Epstein files and, within a really short period, have uncovered a scandal that has rocked the British establishment to its heart, and that has got everybody in this place acting to try to uncover the appalling rot at the heart of the Epstein circle. Yet other jurisdictions have been sitting on those thousands of documents, potentially for decades, and have apparently had no curiosity whatever. That in itself speaks volumes.
The Polish Government have launched an investigation into Epstein’s links with Russia. His links with Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor must be causing enormous concern in the light of that development. It is therefore right that we seek transparency about the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to this role. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said, this is not about one mistake that led to an individual being in an inappropriate position; it is about the fact that the entire establishment failed to exercise curiosity and undertake due diligence. People put aside what accountants call professional scepticism and carried on with the appointment regardless because an entitled person needed a role.
I am pleased that the Government have agreed to comply with the requests in the Humble Address by publishing the documents. That is really important, because the public need transparency. They need to understand quickly what happened and, crucially, what can be done in the future to prevent such an appointment from being made again. Their trust needs to be restored, including in this place. We need to show that we care enough to hold powerful people to account and ensure that we are always improving public life, not slipping backwards.
The Humble Address seeks answers about how a man with such a questionable reputation came to be appointed to represent the British state, but this debate has highlighted the impenetrable networks of privilege that for decades protected a paedophile and those who surrounded him, possibly for their own gain, and who totally disregarded the victims of his crimes and the wider public, to whom they were apparently indifferent.
When the Government came to power, they promised to clean up British politics, and they have a real opportunity to demonstrate that they are serious about that mission. I hope that they take the opportunity and do the job properly.
Luke Taylor
I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
I thank the Minister for his early acknowledgment of support for the Humble Address. He has engaged constructively with comments about its scope and exactly what it says. I thank him for his supportive attitude, as there has been across the Chamber.
To return to the point about negative privilege and the fact that we cannot speak freely and have had to use a gymnastic approach to get to the point where we are today, I have submitted a number of requests for urgent questions to the Speaker’s office, which completely understandably has not managed to justify a discussion of the scandal as it has unfolded. By necessity, we have had to phrase the motion as an examination of the prince’s arrangements and his use of property, and there have been all sorts of confusing attempts not to discuss certain matters, which, as has been mentioned, have precluded us from doing so.
Chris Bryant
I hate to add to the hon. Gentleman’s anguish, but there is a convention in the House that we do not refer to requests for urgent questions that have been made to the Speaker.
Luke Taylor
I apologise for breaking that convention, but it is a useful demonstration that, however right the Speaker is in acting with such utter wisdom that we will never question, it remains a challenge to raise issues like this one in the Chamber.
During the debate, Liberal Democrat Members have been clear that we have to have a full statutory inquiry into the whole Epstein affair and the tentacles that it has inserted into our public life. We must allow the criminal investigations to be completed, but the inquiry must be able to compel witnesses to appear, require them to give evidence under oath, and produce documents and other evidence. The inquiry must be used to punish those who have been complicit and have been involved in the heinous crimes we have heard about in the media. To echo the comments made by other hon. Members, the media and journalists have done incredible work investigating the crimes and poring over the files, and their effort cannot be overstated.
To conclude, we have to ensure that the events that have transpired over the last 20 or 30 years as part of the Epstein scandal can never be repeated. The investigation must allow us to fireproof our constitution from similar events ever happening again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I was going to call Olly Glover, but I was not sure whether the Minister would want to do that, given his earlier intervention.
Chris Bryant
I spoke earlier, so I need to be sure that the House is happy for me to speak again. I am not going to speak at great length. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have united the House twice today. That is a great comfort to me.
First of all, may I commend the Liberal Democrats on the debate that they have held and on bringing this issue to us? Members on both sides of the House have made very powerful speeches, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara), for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). I appreciate that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), is not able to be here; he sent me a kind note to explain why.
As I said right at the beginning of my opening speech, it is the Government’s intention to comply with the motion as soon as is practicable and possible within the law. As I have said from the beginning, my only caveat is that my Department and the whole of Government will work towards maximum transparency and timeliness, but I have to say that where documents may speak materially to the offence of misconduct in public office or any other offence that may be considered by the police, we will have to follow the advice of the prosecuting authorities. I do not think anybody disagrees with that. It is a different point from some of the other points that have been raised in relation to other humble addresses, but I think it is an important one.
I hear the calls that have been made by several hon. Members for a public inquiry. One of the other things in which I was engaged in 2011 was a big row about phone hacking at the News of the World, and we demanded a public inquiry. We ended up with a two-part public inquiry, and the second part was not going to happen until the police had completed their investigations. Of course, it never happened, because so much time had elapsed, so I am somewhat cautious about seeking multi-part public inquiries in relation to this issue. I want the police to be able to do their work as effectively as possible.
I will issue another word of caution. I was in the House when Members, understandably, used their privilege to talk about Sir Leon Brittan. It turned out that many of the things that were said at the time were completely and utterly untrue, and people had been misled by somebody. We always have to be cautious about the way we use our privilege in this House, and I will come on to the bigger point about what others have referred to as “negative privilege” in a moment.
We are very keen to work with the prosecuting authorities as fast as possible, but the timetable for that is set by them, not us. We want them to do their job without fear or favour. The one message that we have sent today to the whole of society is that the prosecuting authorities must proceed without fear or favour. Nobody is above the law.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful to the Minister for what he has said. Although the prosecuting authorities will clear up the criminal matters, the implications go way beyond that. What thought has the Minister given to how they are dealt with—for instance, the closing of the loopholes around our airports, access into the country, visas, and obviously the privileges held within decision making at the heart of Government?
Chris Bryant
I hear the points that my hon. Friend makes, and of course I sympathise with them. However, it is remarkably difficult to disentangle some of those from possible offences on which prosecutions may be brought, so I am somewhat cautious in this area, as she will hear. She will know that I can sometimes be as vociferous as her on these issues, but at this particular moment I want to be cautious.
I want to talk about the issue of negative privilege, which several Members have mentioned. I fully understand the point, which I myself made back in 2011, when I had a bit of a row with Speaker Bercow about it. I fully understand the point that Members have made, and I do not think we should have excessive deference. Of course, it is a matter for the House, for Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, and for the Procedure Committee and others, whether we want to change the accepted conventions of the House. It is a Back-Bench Committee, and if Members want to take such issues to the Procedure Committee, they should do so.
However, I do not think we should overstate the case, because if at any point any of the political parties had wanted to bring a substantive motion to the House, whether in opposition or in government, anybody would have been able to do so, but the truth of the matter is that all of us chose not to. Whether that is because of deference, I cannot judge, but it is certainly true that using a substantive motion is available to us to consider such matters.
Chris Bryant
I will continue for a moment, if the hon. Members do not mind.
We do enjoy freedom of speech in this House, and it is precious. As hon. Members will know, article 8 of the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament shall be impeached in any court of law or any other place, which means we can say things here without the threat of being prosecuted anywhere else. It is a really important and precious privilege, and one that we must guard carefully, which is why we have a sub judice rule. Mr Speaker has decided that the rule does not apply to today’s debate, because no charges have yet been brought—when the sub judice rule applies is quite specific.
I do think that we need to guard that privilege quite carefully, because we have a separation of powers. We do not think that we should have Acts of attainder, with the House deciding by a Bill that somebody is guilty of some crime or other. That is a matter for the prosecuting authorities, and the person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
I think the hon. Gentleman with a bad back wanted to intervene.
Luke Taylor
I thank the Minister—I am not sure whether I do thank him—but I want to push back gently on that, and I would be interested in his response. Does not the fact that we have had 15 years since Andrew resigned in disgrace and it did not come before Parliament demonstrate that there is such a reluctance, or is it a true misunderstanding of process that that did not come before the House for us to discuss and really get into the weeds of the matter? Does he not see that as demonstrating the need for a change in the process, or at least an acknowledgment that we need to be digging deeper into these issues?
Chris Bryant
Well, yes, and I also think that the truth of the matter is that we probably need more Paul Flynns. I have always been a bit sceptical about independent MPs, but I have always been very much in favour of independently minded MPs, who are one of the backbones that really allow Parliament to function effectively. I love the Whips—of course I love the Whips—but there is a but.
I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I really do want to finish my remarks.
Layla Moran
I hear the Minister’s scepticism about a public inquiry, but the more this debate has gone on, the more I have felt that this is an issue of culture. There are things material to how we have ended up where we are that will not meet an evidentiary threshold and have not contravened any laws, but that clearly do need changing, and what needs changing is the overall culture in our establishment itself. If we do not need a public inquiry to examine this in the round on the basis of everything we know—and I understand his arguments for why it should not be—then how do we do this?
Chris Bryant
Yes, I myself made all those arguments about phone hacking in 2011. A chunk of us had to persuade our own political party to be brave on the matter at a time when that was not easy, because the whole media were not in favour of us moving on that. The point I would make is that I think the single most important thing for a Member of Parliament is that they should feel able to speak without fear or favour.
Chris Bryant
All the Lib Dems are now trying to intervene on me, and I am trying to make a very short speech. It was meant to be five minutes, and it is now already nine minutes, so I am failing miserably. All right, I give way.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I want to press him on that point again. There are some specific allegations that an inquiry might want to look at, but there is the broader point about culture, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned. He will know very well—in the context of phone hacking, but also in looking at the culture of the Metropolitan police—that there are many examples in the not-too-distant history, or in our recent history, when an inquiry has looked separately at the culture of an institution as opposed to specific allegations and what specifically went wrong. If he is concerned about a two or three-part inquiry, with a second or third part being cancelled in the future, that simply requires a small amendment to the Inquiries Act 2005. I do think it is important to press him on the point that there is a cultural issue here, and we do want the cultural issue to be looked at.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree that there is a cultural issue that needs to be looked at. I am certainly not able to commit the Government today to a public inquiry—I think all Members accept that I am not going to do that—but I am also not entirely convinced that public inquiries actually often end up changing culture. Culture changes because we choose to. [Interruption.] I note that the Whips have a terrible case of coughing, but I want to end with a few more short points.
The first point relates to trade envoys. I want to praise the work of our present trade envoys—not just from the Labour party and not just from this House—who are helping us to win contracts around the world. They are all accountable through the Minister for Trade and the Department. I would quite like there to be more questions about trade envoys at Business and Trade questions, which are coming up in the near future.
On the Act of succession, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked me about, we are working at pace on this, and we intend to bring forward legislation when we can. I cannot commit to a particular date on that, but I note that Julie Andrews, in “The Sound of Music”, sang,
“I have confidence that spring will come again”,
so I have confidence that the Act of succession will come around at pace.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also said:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The cultural point I will make is that, actually, this was not about power; this was about influence. Influence can be just as pernicious in the body politic as anything else, and that is one of the things we need to address, because it can lead to corruption.
I will end with this point. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, “Let’s make sure this never happens again.” Of course, every single Member of this House would hope that we never again see the horrific abuse that happened under Jeffrey Epstein and the concatenation of different forms of abuse that were created by the complicity of people from so many different sectors—people turning a blind eye and people participating, whether because they loved wealthy people, they loved the wealthy lifestyle or whatever it may be. Of course, I would dearly love to be able to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that it will never happen again, but I would bet my bottom dollar that there will be young people today who are being abused by rich, wealthy, arrogant, entitled people, and it will continue. Yes, we must do everything in our power to make sure that deference, influence and complicity do not allow that to happen, but in the end the only recourse we have is to the court of law, to ensure that those who abuse their position of trust face the full rigour of the law.
Question put and agreed to,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment to that role, including but not confined to any documents held by UK Trade and Investment, British Trade International (BTI) and its successors, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the Group Chief Executive of BTI, Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister regarding the suitability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for the appointment, due diligence and vetting conducted in relation to the appointment, and minutes of meetings and electronic communications regarding the due diligence and vetting.
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill
Chris Bryant ExcerptsMonday 23rd February 2026
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Act 2026 View all Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 23 February 2026 - (23 Feb 2026)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I welcome all Members to this slightly unusual Committee. Normally, a Committee of the whole House is awfully contentious, with everybody shouting at one another, but it will not be so contentious this afternoon—certainly not as regards the main body of the Bill. I will introduce the Bill now, and at the end I will respond to the debate, and on the amendments that several hon. Members have tabled.
Clause 1(a) will increase from £12 billion to £20 billion the aggregate limit of financial assistance that can be provided under section 8(1) of the Industrial Development Act 1982; this is to reflect inflation adjustments since the limit was last raised in 2009. Clause 1(b) will raise from £1 billion to £1.5 billion the level of incremental increases that can be made in an order by the Secretary of State; again, this reflects inflation adjustments since the limit was last raised in 2009. The parliamentary scrutiny arrangements for these incremental increases will remain precisely as they were, namely that they will be subject to the affirmative legislative procedure.
Clause 2 will amend the financial assistance for exports and overseas investment under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991. It will make four changes to the Act: it will raise the commitment limit from £84 billion to £160 billion; it will simplify the legislation by expressing the limit in sterling, rather than in special drawing rights; it makes provision for the limit to be increased by increments of up to £15 billion through secondary legislation, as the need arises; and it will remove the limit on the number of occasions on which the commitment limit can be raised.
Clause 3 outlines the territorial extent of the Bill. I can confirm that the Bill does not engage the legislative consent motion process. My Department had discussions, prior to the introduction of the Bill, with all the devolved Governments; they confirm that the legislative consent motion process is not engaged.
I hope all hon. Members will agree that all three clauses should stand part of the Bill. I look forward to hearing the debate on the amendments.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This is a short Bill, but it involves potentially raising and spending a huge amount of public money, so in the interests of thorough scrutiny, I will speak to Opposition amendments 3 and 4 to clause 2, concerning the use of public finance for exports that may ultimately be re-exported to sanctioned destinations. Our amendments would prevent the Government from providing export finance or insurance where there is reason to believe that goods may be re-exported to Russia, or to any other country subject to UK sanctions. In such cases, the Secretary of State’s financial commitments would be capped at zero.
These amendments are not abstract. They respond to a very real problem in our world today that has been highlighted by independent analysis. For example, Sky’s Ed Conway has done extensive reporting showing that although direct exports to Russia have collapsed since sanctions were imposed, goods of UK origin are still reaching Russia through third countries. Exports to states such as Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Uzbekistan have surged by extraordinary amounts—sometimes more than 1,000%. Obviously, these are not normal market movements; they are clear indications of diversion routes being used to circumvent sanctions.
These are not just trade flows on a spreadsheet. Sky News has shown that components of UK origin have been found inside Russian military equipment used on the battlefield in Ukraine. Among the items that have been identified in Russian systems are British-made microchips found in Russian drones, UK-origin electronic components inside Russian missiles and dual-use technology that should never have been able to reach Russia under the sanctions regime. Those components were not exported directly from the UK to Russia; they were routed through intermediary countries, often the same countries to which UK exports have suddenly spiked. President Zelensky has publicly raised concerns that UK goods are still making their way into Russia, despite sanctions.
That is why we believe that amendments 3 and 4 are necessary. They represent a simple but important safeguard. The UK must ensure that its export finance system does not inadvertently support supply chains that undermine our sanctions regime. In the case of Russia, we must be absolutely certain that no UK-backed goods are being diverted in ways that could support its illegal war against Ukraine.
The Minister has spoken about the need to expand UK Export Finance’s capacity and to support small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. We agree that export finance has an important role to play, but it must be deployed responsibly. I am sure that the whole Committee agrees that public money should never be used in ways that conflict with our foreign policy or national security objectives. Our amendments would ensure that the Government exercise due diligence, and that UK Export Finance support is aligned with the UK’s sanctions framework. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a constructive and proportionate proposal, and will want to support it tonight.
New clause 2, in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, is about the steel industry. We can all agree that steel made in the UK is a strategic foundation sector for the United Kingdom. It supports thousands of skilled jobs and underpins supply chains across manufacturing, construction and defence. We did not oppose the Government’s emergency legislation last April, although we warned that it was rushed, and that the Government did not have a proper plan. Nearly a year on from that emergency legislation, and nearly two years into this Government, we are still waiting for the long-promised steel strategy.
The Government have still not been able to agree a deal with the Chinese, despite the Prime Minister’s visit to China. There has been secret meeting after secret meeting between Ministers and Jingye—meetings on which the Government have refused to update Parliament. New clause 2 would simply require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the impact of the increased financial assistance limits on the UK steel industry. That report would set out, first, the amount of financial assistance provided each month to UK steel undertakings under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, and secondly, the number of full-time equivalent steel jobs that, in the Secretary of State’s view, would have been lost without the increased limit. It is a straightforward accountability measure. If public money is being used to support the steel sector, Parliament and the public deserve to know how much is being spent, why it is necessary and what outcomes it is delivering.
The Government have repeatedly spoken about the importance of steel, and we agree that steel is very important, but without a clear strategy or transparent reporting, it is impossible to judge whether interventions are effective, and whether they represent value for money. How do we know that we are not providing a limitless amount of funding that will crowd out support for other industries, and how can we assess whether it is good value for the taxpayer? New clause 2 would not constrain the Government’s ability to act; it would simply ensure that support is justified, targeted and effective. I hope that the Minister will recognise the value of this additional transparency and accept the new clause.
I turn to amendments 1 and 2, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). We believe that they are sensible and straightforward. If the Secretary of State has reason to believe that modern slavery or human trafficking is likely to be present in the supply chain of a business receiving export-supported goods, obviously the amount of public financial support should be zero. That is surely the only responsible position that this House can take. We are inherently supportive of the need for transparency in supply chains, and will support the amendments.
I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Providing transparency on the amounts that are allocated across the whole United Kingdom would seem to be helpful assistance to this House.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is an honour to follow the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). I stand to speak in support of new clause 1 in his name, which is supported by numerous people across the Opposition Benches.
New clause 1 is not radical or wrecking; it is actually very reasonable in what it asks, and should therefore be accepted. It seeks to ensure that when the House votes to increase financial assistance for industry and exports, the Government return within a year, and every year thereafter, and tell Parliament plainly how each part of the United Kingdom has benefited. That should not be controversial in any way, but it is sadly necessary, because Northern Ireland does not stand on equal ground.
The Bill lifts the cap on financial assistance under the Industrial Development Act 1982 and increases UK Export Finance’s statutory commitment limit. That is a good thing and it should, in theory, benefit every business across our country. However, under article 10 of the Windsor framework, EU state aid rules continue to apply in Northern Ireland, where support may affect trade in goods within the European Union. While the rest of the United Kingdom moves forward under one subsidy regime, Northern Ireland therefore operates under a different legal shadow.
The practical effect is hesitation—hesitation in Departments, hesitation in advice and hesitation in investment—because the final interpretation does not rest with the UK courts alone. That is not equality within the Union. We cannot view this in isolation from the wider damage that has already been inflicted on Northern Ireland by the protocol and the Windsor framework.
As I have said before in the House, the protocol and the Windsor framework are not a minor technical adjustment to trade, but a bureaucratic burden, a constitutional compromise and an economic noose around the businesses simply trading within our own internal market. We see that evidenced here in the Bill where it does not apply to Northern Ireland. The failure is not anecdotal; it is measurable, documented and deeply felt. The Federation of Small Businesses has reported that 58% of businesses in Northern Ireland face moderate to significant challenges because of those arrangements and that more than one third have stopped trading with Great Britain altogether to avoid the cost and complexity. Let the reality of that sink in. That is not frictionless trade or the best of both worlds; that is economic distortion inside our own country.
I have spoken about the businesses that have had essential goods delivered from Scotland, costing time and money. I have raised the case of used agricultural machinery being refused entry unless it meets EU standards, despite being road driven and clean. I have heard from retailers struggling to source ordinary goods from their main market in Great Britain because of paperwork and regulatory barriers that simply do not exist anywhere else in the United Kingdom. This is the lived reality of the Irish sea border.
We are told that all of this is necessary to protect the Belfast agreement, but it is not. The agreement is built on consent—the principle that Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom cannot change without consent of its people—yet our economic and legal position has been fundamentally altered without that consent. The agreement does not require an internal border within our sovereign state. It does not require that one part of the United Kingdom be subject to a distinct regulatory and subsidy regime, overseen in part by a foreign court, the European Court of Justice.
This Bill increases state support for British industry, but unless we confront the consequences of the Windsor framework honestly, Northern Ireland will potentially not benefit in step with England, Scotland and Wales. New clause 1 simply asks for transparency. If Northern Ireland is genuinely benefiting equally, let the Government publish the evidence annually. But if, once again, Northern Ireland is constrained while the rest of the United Kingdom moves freely, this House deserves to know just that.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Our businesses pay the same taxes, and they deserve the same support without qualification, hesitation or constraint. That is why I support new clause 1, along with my colleagues on these Benches, and I commend the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim for bringing it forward.
Chris Bryant
I note that the creative industries have now achieved 5% growth in the last year, faster than any other part of the economy—and I think we have seen quite a creative industry this evening, with Members managing to get amendments into this very tightly constricted Bill. I am happy to address some of the issues that were mentioned, but I think some of them strayed somewhat wide of the mark of the Bill itself.
Let me turn first to the amendment from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He and I have participated in many campaigns on forced labour and other issues, and I am entirely with him on the aim of preventing all modern slavery. I will just correct him on one factual mistake that he made. He said that the UK was the first country to ban slavery, but it was Haiti in 1804. It could be argued that Napoleon abolished it, but then they returned to slavery afterwards. It was Haiti that abolished it first.
The right hon. Member makes the very good point that modern slavery is an abomination. It is morally wrong. Forced labour is morally wrong. It is also a taint on any kind of international trade, and it undermines fair practice from other countries that do not engage in forced labour. I am determined to do everything I possibly can, both in this role and in the future if I am not in this role, to make sure that we tackle forced labour in every single part of the way we run our economy. As a Labour Member, it would be shocking if I were not to say precisely that.
The right hon. Member knows that I am not going to accept his amendment—
Chris Bryant
Fake shock does not suit him as a look. It would be wrong for us in this country to feed ourselves, clothe ourselves, and house ourselves on the back of forced labour. At the moment we are engaged in a review of responsible business conduct, and I very much hope that that will move us in the direction of being able to tackle this issue comprehensively, rather than just in this particular area.
I reassure the right hon. Member that UK Export Finance takes these issues extremely seriously. It is very diligent in the way that it analyses and looks at any of the investments it makes to ensure that environmental and human rights issues are fully addressed before making any financial commitment. We intend to produce our response to the responsible business conduct review very soon. I cannot give a precise date, as Ministers rarely manage to produce dates, which the right hon. Member knows.
UKEF uses OECD standards and the Equator Principles. It also reports extensively on this area, as it is required to do under the two Acts that apply to it. It works with the Office for Responsible Business Conduct’s dispute resolution unit, which provides a non-judicial grievance mechanism for looking at precisely all these issues. I am not saying a long-term no to the right hon. Member’s request. I completely agree with the aim of what he is seeking to achieve, but I think we already do that under UKEF. If particular issues arise in the future, I hope the right hon. Member will write to me. I would be very happy to respond to him.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I understand what the Minister is saying very clearly, but a couple of the examples I gave where things had slipped through the net show that the system is not perfect. Does he think that the Government are likely therefore to deliver, as that said they would, on taking the Modern Slavery Act and beefing it up to such an extent that companies importing and exporting have a responsibility to check their supply chains, and if they do not it would be a criminal offence?
Chris Bryant
I cannot say anything more clearly than that I want to make sure that we in the UK are not reliant for our economic prosperity on the forced labour of others. We need to make that as comprehensive and effective as we possibly can. I know the two cases that the right hon. Member referred to, and I am happy to write to him, if he wants, in precise detail about those rather than to delay the House tonight. Funnily enough, the precise processes that we went through in the UK with UKEF in relation to those cases would have been met by the US legislation as well, which is arguably not as effective as it would like to be. I am as interested as he is in being effective in this space.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) gave an exceptionally good speech, I thought, on why we should not have left the European Union and why we should never have accepted the deal that was put on the table. I note that the people of Northern Ireland agreed with me and not with him on whether the UK should leave the European Union. I am afraid that—
Chris Bryant
If the hon. and learned Member will allow me, I will respond to the points that were made by him and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart).
First of all, the requirements under new clause 1 are completely unnecessary because UKEF already reports annually, as required by legislation. All of that is cleared through the National Audit Office. It is all there, perfectly available for anybody to see. I got a sense that there was a suggestion that Northern Ireland was losing out because of the money from UKEF. It is quite the reverse. If either Member wants to go through what is already published in this sphere, they will see for themselves precisely how well Northern Ireland does—and, of course, it should do.
The whole point of the two Acts that we are referring to today is that they should be able to enable—[Interruption.] I will give way to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), if he could just hold his horses for a very brief moment.
I have two further points. First, UKEF has offices across the whole of the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. I think there is a misunderstanding here. Some people seem to suggest that what happens is that the Government say, “Give money to that business over there.” That is not what happens. This is a demand-led process, where UKEF is able to respond to the demand that arises. We need to make sure that that is spread across the whole of the United Kingdom, and that is what we intend to do.
Sammy Wilson
Northern Ireland would expect to do well out of this process, because proportionally we export much more of our industrial production than other parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister rails against the decision on Brexit and so on, but does he accept that since the United Kingdom as a whole voted to leave the EU, the Government’s responsibility was to make sure that the whole of the United Kingdom left on the same terms?
Chris Bryant
I was not a member of that Government, and I did not support the deal that the right hon. Member supported in the first place, which gave us some of the problems we have today.
I want to make sure that all the businesses across the whole of the United Kingdom are able to export. I have made the point before that just over one in 10 businesses in the UK export around the world. If we could manage to double that, it would be very good. I think something like 16,000 UK businesses that used to export to the European Union no longer do so, and I think that is an own goal. We are trying to reset our relationship with the European Union so that we can do better on exports.
I turn now to the comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), which were primarily aimed at money laundering and some of the issues in relation to Russia. I want to make absolutely clear that we are determined to do everything we possibly can to debilitate the Russian military complex: first, by making sure that it does not have the finances available to it, because it is unable to trade in the rest of the world; and secondly, by making sure that it does not have the materiel—the kit that it needs to be able to conduct its war. That is why the UK has implemented a comprehensive set of sanctions worth over £20 billion of UK-Russia trade.
In the UK’s next package of sanctions, we will introduce new sanctions on the direct and indirect export of goods from the UK to Russia, further tackling the issues in chemicals, minerals and metals that have been identified to have potential uses in Russia’s military industrial complex. We will target actors in Russia and third countries that support trade in Russian energy, including the shadow fleet vessels, refineries, terminals, and their facilitators.
Chris Bryant
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank all colleagues for their engagement on the Bill. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Voltaire said, “A small book is a great evil”, but this small Bill will do a great deal of good. It will ensure that the Government can continue to support British industry and British exporters.
Some £14.5 billion of UK Export Finance support last year is supporting up to 70,000 jobs, including across key industrial sectors such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and automotives. Through existing provisions in the Industrial Development Act 1982, the British Business Bank’s northern powerhouse investment fund II has directly invested £115 million into over 300 small businesses. Similarly in the midlands, the midlands engine investment fund II has launched a £400 million fund to drive sustainable economic growth by supporting innovation and creating local opportunity for new and growing businesses.
The Bill ensures that the Government can continue their investment into the British businesses that are the backbone of this economy, and I would like to thank the officials in my Department, in particular James Copeland, Cal Stewart, Ellie Buck and Andrew Fernandez, and of course the whole of my private office, who have helped me take it to this point. In tandem with our new trade strategy, it will ensure that more businesses than ever before will be empowered to export, with the financial firepower of Government behind them. In combination with the modern industrial strategy, this Government have ensured that the UK remains one of the strongest, most attractive and innovative economies in the world, both now and in the future, so it is with great pleasure that I commend the Bill to the House.
Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine—there is nobody better to chair a debate on fashion, if I may say so. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for her excellent opening speech and all the wonderful points she made. I want to get slightly competitive for a moment: I admire her skirt, which her sister made, but I want to draw attention to the top that I am wearing, which I made myself—onshoring fashion in action.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
You’re taking other people’s jobs—typical Lib Dem!
Sarah Olney
The Minister’s sedentary intervention gives me a good opportunity to say that the hand knitting industry supports many jobs in many rural areas, right across the country, including Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. However, I have spoken to the people who own Knit With Me, the amazing knitting shop on Richmond Hill of which I am a regular customer, and they tell me how much harder it has become to send some of their amazing products abroad since Brexit. Of course, pure wool is an animal product, which falls under those regulations, so the customs requirements to send packages to the EU have become so much more challenging for them. I am therefore here just as much to stand up for the knitting industry—I am literally standing up in my hand knitted top—although that is not quite what the debate is about, so I beg your pardon, Ms Jardine.
The Liberal Democrats recognise the urgency to transform the way in which fashion operates. We must reduce pollution, curtail environmental damage and tackle unethical practices in the supply chain. The fast fashion industry has been linked to unethical labour practices and modern slavery, tarnishing the appeal of the garments people wear. We urgently need a more sustainable fashion industry. Increasing domestic production is an important aspect of that, as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) so passionately set out when talking about his own constituency.
Onshoring is the process of bringing fashion and textile manufacturing back to the UK from overseas. It aims to shorten supply chains and rebuild domestic production capacity that has been lost through decades of offshoring. There are many benefits to onshoring production: it could create local jobs and support British manufacturers and suppliers. More domestic production would also strengthen the UK’s supply chain, reducing reliance on distant producers and the risk of global disruption. There are also benefits to brands seeking agile, flexible production—especially smaller and emerging labels that value local partners—not to mention the reduction of carbon emissions by minimising long-distance shipping. It also fits with growing consumer demand for climate-friendly products, while allowing better quality control and adherence to environmental and labour standards.
Currently, less than 3% of the clothing worn in the UK is made domestically, which shows the scale of the decline. However, the UK fashion and textiles sector retains a base of skilled mills, heritage factories and emerging micro-factories that could support scaled-up onshoring. As such, it has significant potential for domestic growth. UK labour, energy and running costs are, however, significantly higher than in many overseas locations, which makes price competition difficult, and small businesses may struggle with the high initial investment required to rebuild facilities.
Many of the challenges of growing the sector are compounded by a shortage of skilled workers such as sewing machinists. There is a risk of losing these kinds of specialist crafts if they are not actively rebuilt and supported. More broadly, access to training, and hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses of all kinds across the country. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the industrial strategy at the beginning of the Parliament, and the commitment to an increase in skills and training.
We would introduce a general duty of care for the environment and human rights in business operations and supply chains. We would introduce legislation obliging retailers to guarantee full traceability in their supply chains, ensuring ethically sourced materials, decent livelihoods and safe working conditions, as well as the introduction of joint liability for sub-contractors in the fashion and fabric industry.
The UK imports around £20 million-worth of clothing from countries around the world every year, and around 25% of that is estimated to come from China. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Chinese Government’s actions in Xinjiang constitute a genocide. The National Crime Agency decided not to launch an investigation into the importation of cotton products manufactured by forced labour in the Xinjiang province of China. The Court of Appeal found that to be unlawful, a decision that the Liberal Democrats welcome. All human beings should be treated with decency and have their human rights respected. With 19 billion units of clothing produced in China yearly, it is not unbelievable that much of that is produced by detainees in Xinjiang.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
It is an enormous delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine—I cannot imagine a greater delight this afternoon. I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this debate, and for the passion with which she has approached the issue, not just today but over many months; indeed, it is one of the issues that she has talked about throughout her time as an MP. Burberry used to be based in my constituency, and then left, so I feel quite strongly about some of these issues, and I am delighted to stand in for my colleague in the Department this afternoon.
It was great to hear from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). Of course, we all know of Leicester’s strengths in the garments industry over many decades. In fact, many different parts of the garments industry, including parts of the shoe industry, have been based in areas across the midlands and have been intrinsic to its economic success over centuries. We know about some of the problems there have been with working standards and labour standards, and he made a strong argument for his constituency.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he is a dedicated follower of fashion. He was of course referring to the song by The Kinks from 1966, which he and I are old enough to remember. I remember one of the lines—it is a polite line; there are others that might not fit him so well—which goes:
“One week he’s in polka dots, the next week he’s in stripe”.
I think the hon. Member is pretty consistent in his attire: he is smart, elegant and to the point. He made a strong set of points on behalf of his constituents.
I agree with many points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I am particularly conscious of the issue of people in artisanal or small businesses in particular—sometimes those are hobby business, but sometimes they are more substantial—trying to send packages into Europe and finding it very difficult to do so. That is one reason for needing to get to fiction-less trade—I mean frictionless trade, not the fictional frictionless trade that was promised by some people in another political party when they were in government—and we are seeking to do that as much as we possibly can.
I am focused on how we can enable the whole value chain in the UK to discover ways of exporting into the European Union, which still represents around 45% of our export opportunities, and more widely around the world. We know that a UK business that is able to find a second market and to export is more likely to pay its staff better, be more resilient, grow faster and still be there in 10, 15 and 20 years’ time. For all those reasons, we want to do everything we can to enable more of that sector to export.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to responsible business conduct, which I will come on to a little later. I will also come to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), who has a slightly fanciful memory of what the previous Government was like, in my humble opinion—I think if we had a vote on that, we would win; it would be all versus one.
We all know that fashion is about as British as tea and crumpets. There are so many massive household names: Ted Baker, Paul Smith, Superdry, which I never knew was British, Barbour, ASOS, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney, All Saints, Dunhill, admittedly owned by a Swiss company at the moment but nonetheless a very British brand, and Richard James—and I am just talking about the clothes I am wearing today. [Laughter.] I am not wearing all those, obviously.
It is similar with shoes. I used to be the youth officer for the diocese of Peterborough, living in Northampton. In Northamptonshire, as well as in neighbouring counties, shoe manufacturing has been so much a part of their history. Whether it is Dr Martens, Dune, Cheaney, though I never know how to say it, Tricker’s, Joseph Azagury, Yull, Church’s, Clarks, Grenson, Loake, John Lobb, Crockett and Jones, or Jeffery-West—these boots were made for walking, and that’s just what they are going to do. Whenever we go anywhere in the world, we see so many British shoe brands on every major high street, in airports and elsewhere, and we are immensely proud of that. Quite a lot of those, though not all, are made in the UK.
It is easy to talk about big brands, but part of this debate is precisely to say that there are lots of smaller brands making their way, and that we as a Government must do everything we can to help. One of my favourites, which I have referred to before in the House, is Howies. It was originally based in London and is now in Cardigan in Wales. It is ethically based, and produces a whole range, including sporting clothing and other things. Original Fibres, too, is a London brand; it is ethically sourced, and is trying to bring forward the best in British styling as well as manufacture.
There is Shrimps, Saint and Sofia, Talia Byre, Peachy Den, Black and Beech, and perhaps one for the hon. Member for Strangford, Sleazy Rider.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is saying no to that, but he does not know what it is like.
In Edinburgh, of course, there are lots of other brands; perhaps the most famous is Pringle. We have talked a little about knitwear brands such as Beira, Rowanjoy and Mackenzie. We really want those smaller brands to prosper, because so many of them know that part of their key selling point is that they are British and bring something special to the market. They have a particular eye and source their materials in an ethical way. It just gives us a buzz to wear some of their clothes. That is precisely the kind of industry that we want to support.
When I was shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, one of my best days was going down to see the Royal School of Needlework. Hon. Members may think of this as a rather posh thing that puts together items for royal coronations and things like that, but it is the only place in Europe where one can gain a qualification in needlework that is essential to some of the higher fashion brands in the UK. I thought I was going to meet lots of very posh people from Reigate or wherever it may be, but I was absolutely delighted when I walked in to find that the first two young women I met were both from the Rhondda. They wanted to go into the fashion industry, and they knew that by acquiring all the skills they could from the Royal School of Needlework, they were really going to flourish.
The sector is worth bazillions—that is an official term. The statistics people in the Department will probably want me to correct the record on that later. This sector is worth £62 billion to the UK economy, and it supports 1.3 million jobs and generates £23 billion in tax revenue every year. As the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned, there are major manufacturing hubs in many parts of the land—for instance, in Leicester, as we have already heard, across the midlands and in the highlands. I have not yet mentioned Harris Tweed, from which I have a very splendid waistcoat, or Favourbrook—another great British brand.
We are not just talking about textiles for clothing; camouflage has been mentioned, and high tech and new developments in the sector are really important. Yesterday, I met representatives of Panaz Ltd from Burnley, which produces a series of fabrics, including antimicrobial and fire retardant textiles. It is very much at the cutting edge—that sounds wrong, because that is a metaphor from the textile industry—of innovation in the sector, and it sells across the world, which is brilliant.
There are of course connections between the sector and many others we excel in. That is why they are integral to our industrial strategy. One has only to watch 10 minutes of “Bridgerton” to know that fashion and textiles are a really important part of what we are selling to the whole world. One could say the same about Bond, though I would prefer it if he wore British tailoring, even though Bond is now owned by Amazon.
Incidentally, British tailoring is so big that the biggest supermarket in Spain is called El Corte Inglés, which means “The English Cut”. Founded in 1890, it got its name because tailors in Madrid knew that the best tailoring in the world was British and they wanted to sell on the basis of that. It was bought up in 1934 and became an enormous chain in Spain. That just shows our connection. One final connection I would like to make is with British jewellery. We have some of the best jewellers in the world, and often the connection between fashion and jewellery is a really important part of the things that we excel at.
Some specific points were made about procurement. I had not heard the point about uniforms before. It is a really good one, and I am going to chase it down. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet does not have to go and metaphorically beat up the Ministers in the Ministry of Defence. I will do that for her, and I will get all the details. It would be good if more of our British servicemen and women were dressed in British uniforms. I remember once being in Sarajevo and being introduced to the new Italian uniforms, which I think are done by Dolce & Gabbana. They had previously been Armani, but they thought they would upgrade to Dolce & Gabbana, or it may have been the other way round. I am not sure—I might have to correct the record again. My hon. Friend spoke about the Procurement Act 2023, which gives public bodies greater ability to prioritise ethical and local sourcing. One would think that that would apply to the whole of Government rather than just parts of the Government, so let us see whether we can make that happen.
My hon. Friend asked about Government investment. We have set aside £4.3 billion to support manufacturers over the next five years, and up to £2.8 billion of that is for research and development. Quite often, the creative industries such as fashion are hesitant about seeking research and development money, because they think that there is nothing new under the skies and that they therefore would not qualify for it, but one has only to watch “Kinky Boots” to know that research and development is just as essential in fashion as it is in any other sector.
We have revamped our support for businesses to make it more effective, including through the development of the business growth service. I urge any business to seek help and advice when they need it. We are very keen on enhancing our trade promotion work. The spring version of London Fashion Week is coming up; unfortunately, it is just for women. I would like us to get back to having a spring fashion week that has both male and female fashions, though the economics of that do not necessarily add up at the moment. We are very supportive of the autumn London Fashion Week.
Of all the big fashion weeks around the world, the UK goes for the edgier part of the market, as Members may already know. That is precisely where we should be, which is why it is so important that we provide financial support for what we call “newgen”, which has produced a suite of new designers in recent years, many of whom are now breaking into much bigger markets. Of course, we continue our support through the British Fashion Council.
We also produced a small business strategy last year, which is really important, not only because many fashion and textiles businesses suffer from late payments, which is something that we definitely need to work on far more effectively than we have in the past, but because of the lack of availability of cash, whether that is for significant investment or for export investment. On both of those issues, we have set aside additional financial support to make sure that that is available for small and medium-sized enterprises.
I come on to the issue of responsible business conduct. Several hon. Members referred to issues such as forced labour or sustainability, but we have not talked about palm oil or deforestation or the production of cotton in different parts of the world, and so on. Hon. Members will know that we have been engaged in a responsible business conduct review, which is nearing completion. I hope we will be able to announce our conclusions fairly soon.
My aim is not to load businesses with more regulation but to try to make sure that the regulation they are subject to is truly effective. One of my anxieties is that sometimes we just get businesses to produce reports; somebody is employed to produce lots of different reports, which get bunged in the annual report and nobody in the world reads them ever. I just do not think that is as effective as other measures that we might be able to introduce. We are trying to curtail the regulatory burden, while at the same time making regulation more effective.
Sarah Olney
Does the Minister agree that effective regulation is not about putting burdens on business, but about ensuring a level playing field, so that ethical businesses and those that have committed to the welfare of their employees and to sourcing good quality materials have a level playing field to sell their products and are not being undercut by people who do not observe those standards?
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with that, but I would make another point. As we put together our trade strategy, we also have to consider whether there might be unfair subsidies in other parts of the world that make it impossible for British businesses to compete in the market. Dumping and other unfair trade practices around the world are part of the set of issues that I want to be able to take to the World Trade Organisation for proper consideration.
I end with a couple of thoughts. We have all loved the fast fashion industry, and shopping is a pastime for many. For many, the availability of cheap clothing is an absolutely essential part of being able to dress themselves. At a time of global crises and financial difficulties for many families, where parents might be worrying about being able to pay the next bill that comes through the door, making sure that the clothes they buy for their kids to go to school and so on are affordable is essential. I get all of that, but I do rejoice in my heart when I talk to younger generations, including my nieces, who are as much in love with preloved clothes as they are with stuff that they might buy new today—with discovering something that has been around for a very long time, and not just buying something and chucking it out two months later.
There is joy and an economic opportunity for all of us if we can manage to onshore more in a variety of different ways, such as enabling people to recycle their own clothes a bit more often, to recycle the clothes of others, and to invest in ethical brands who really do the business in this country. Of course, that means that we have to invest in skills so that there are people able to develop these things—I think the hon. Member for Richmond Park is offering to provide knitting classes for all of her constituents.
Incidentally, I should say I do love “The Great British Sewing Bee”. It is a great television programme. It shows lots of people that we can make our own clothes, and that ethical and sustainable products are an important part of making sure that we live in a world that we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren, or our nieces and nephews.