Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
Chris Bryant Excerpts(5 days, 7 hours 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
(6 days, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill 2024-26 View all Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill 2024-26 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 weeks, 3 days 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.
UK-India Free Trade Agreement
Chris Bryant Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK-India Free Trade Agreement.
I will start by saying why this deal is so important. That may seem obvious, I suppose. We did £47.2 billion-worth of trade with India last year. That was up 15% year on year, and India is now our 10th-largest trading partner, but it is the future potential that stands out. India has the highest growth rate in the G20. It is likely to become the third-largest economy in the world by 2029. By 2050, India will be home to more than a quarter of a billion high-income consumers. Demand for imports is due to grow as well, reaching £2.8 trillion by 2050. Assuming global foreign direct investment into India continues on its recent trajectory, it could grow to £1 trillion by 2033.
Despite all that, India’s markets have been behind some of the highest barriers in the world. It has some of the highest tariff rates in the G20, with gin and whisky at 150%, cars at 110% and cosmetics at 22%. Soft drinks, lamb, fish, chocolate and biscuits—I know that is an odd combination—are at 33%. In 2024, India was ranked as the eighth most restrictive services market by the OECD. That inevitably either prices many UK products out of the market or makes them a premium product beyond the reach of many in India.
Some 42% of UK businesses surveyed by Grant Thornton in 2024 said that they would want to build a presence in India, and 72% said that a free trade agreement would encourage them to explore the Indian market. The agreement that this Government secured was a momentous achievement. Others had been trying to get a deal like it for years and failed, but this Prime Minister, along with the then Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander)—I pay tribute to them—brought home the goods.
Chris Bryant
Oh dear. I will give way, but I think I know what my hon. Friend is going to say.
Gareth Snell
The UK is the single largest importer of Indian ceramics. The trade deal removes some of the tariffs that we apply to Indian imports. The removal of those tariffs, along with industrial energy pricing in India, means that those imports become incredibly competitive in comparison to our domestic market. In some cases, those imports are well below our own market production point. Bricks are also affected. We are the single largest importer of Indian bricks, yet our own brick kilns stand at two-thirds capacity. Can the Minister set out the protections in this trade deal to ensure that while we get the new markets for our exports, we do not undercut our domestic market with cheaper imports?
Chris Bryant
I thought my hon. Friend might be about to talk about ceramics. He regularly speaks up—privately to me and publicly in the House and elsewhere—on behalf of his constituents, and he is right to do so. As he knows, I visited some of the businesses in his constituency, and I am keen to ensure that we do everything in our power within the Department to support, protect and enhance the British ceramics industry, which is an important part of our work. I just say to my hon. Friend that the overall impact of this agreement on the ceramics industry will be limited, because 543 out of 577 lines—steel lines, for instance—were already at 0%. The remaining 34, which we brought to 0% as part of the deal, all currently have tariffs of just 2% or 3%, and India is not a prominent source of imports for those sectors.
I accept that there are broad issues for the ceramics industry, and I have seen everything that Mr Flello, a former denizen of this place, has produced. I do not think that this agreement is the problem. There are other issues that we need to address, not least the issues that my hon. Friend raises in relation to energy costs, which are very specific to the ceramics industry.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The evidence that we took in the Business and Trade Committee did raise concerns about the impact of the deal on both the brick industry and the ceramics industry in the UK. The Minister knows that the Trade Remedies Authority is not really equipped with the tools that it needs to defend us in this new world; nor has the Competition and Markets Authority yet seen fit to finalise its foreign subsidy control regime, despite two years of consultation. Will the Minister at least assure the House that he will keep a very close eye on this matter, and will not hesitate to bring forward protections or trade remedies if the need arises?
Chris Bryant
Yes, of course. I read the report from my right hon. Friend’s Committee over the weekend, and it is a very fine report; indeed, some of what I have already said was lifted directly from it. Broadly speaking, I have the impression that the House might be content to proceed with the agreement, and the Committee was certainly content to proceed with it. As my right hon. Friend will of course know, I guaranteed to him that we would have a debate during the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 period, and we are now having a debate in the House during that CRaG period.
My right hon. Friend made a good point about trade remedies. In a whole series of sectors, we need to keep our review alert to that. He may wish to make some points later about labour in brick industry that are made in his report, but let me point out again that nearly 90% of ceramics imports from India already come into the UK tariff-free, so I am not sure that the agreement will lead to the particular problem that some in the sector expect.
The agreement goes well beyond India’s precedent in opening the door for UK businesses. As the Select Committee said in its report,
“The UK-India Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is the UK’s most economically significant bilateral free trade agreement since leaving the European Union.”
It boosts UK GDP by £4.8 billion, which is 0.13% of GDP. It boosts wages by £2.2 billion, and it boosts bilateral trade by £25.5 billion every year in the long run, by 2040. India will drop tariffs on 90% of lines, covering 92% of current UK exports, giving the UK tariff savings of £400 million a year immediately on entry into force, rising to £900 million after 10 years, even if there is no increase in trade. India’s average tariff will fall from 15% to 3%.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his enthusiasm and energy in doing this job. I think that we welcome the tariffs.
The agreement was projected to give Northern Ireland’s economy a boost of some £50 million. Three distilleries in my constituency— Echlinville, Hinch and Rademon—will take advantage of the reduction in the whisky tariff. The opening of markets for manufacturing and engineering has also been referred to. Let me say with great respect, however, that six months after the agreement, Northern Ireland has not yet seen much happen. I know that the Minister is keen to make it happen, but may I ask him, please, when it will happen?
Chris Bryant
Sometimes! Perhaps a tee-slightly-er or a tee-occasionally-er, but not total. [Interruption.] Yes, only in the early morning. Well, I got that completely wrong.
Anyway, I think all Members will want to celebrate the fact that we are managing to get the whisky tariff down from 150% to 75%, and then down to 40%. That will be transformational. Incidentally, this is not just about whisky itself; the other day I was with one of the founding members of Fever-Tree, who pointed out that it is also about soft drinks, including the soft drinks that go with the whisky, ginger ale being a classic instance. If we can get Fever-Tree ginger ale out to India at the same time, or for that matter—who knows?—perhaps even Indian tonic water, that will be a significant benefit for us.
The hon. Gentleman made a perfectly legitimate point about timing. Plenty of companies are asking me, “When is it all going to start?” We have to go through a ratification process, and what we are doing now is part of that. India has its own process, which is largely in the hands of Mr Modi directly, but I am very confident that that can happen fairly swiftly, and I hope very much that in the next few weeks and months we will be able to declare a date for entry into force.
There is always a slight moment between concluding the negotiations, the signature, the ratification and then entry into force. We cannot ever be precise about the date of entry into force until ratification has proceeded, but we are working as fast as we can. There is one other element that we always said we wanted to happen simultaneously: the double contributions agreement, which His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is negotiating with India. As soon as all that is completed, I hope we will be able to get to entry into force. I will come on to the implementation.
I should just say that I slightly confused all my tariff lines earlier between steel and ceramics. We will tidy that up a little later, if that is all right with you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Every region and nation will benefit from the agreement, including a £210 million boost for the north-west, driven by aerospace and automotive wins; a £190 million boost for Scotland, supported by cuts to whisky and satellite tariffs, and by financial services access; and a £190 million boost for the east of England, generated through tariff cuts and improved rules for medical devices and clean energy products. There are some big winners, and I have already talked about whisky. We estimate that whisky exports will increase by £230 million—an 88% increase. The tariffs on autos will fall from over 100% to 10% under quota, which will phase from combustion engines to electric vehicles. Auto parts and car engine exports are expected to increase by £189 million—a 148% increase.
The tariffs on cosmetics will fall from 20% to as low as 0%, which will boost exports by £400 million—a 364% increase. I talked to Charlotte Tilbury about this the other day, and she was absolutely—[Interruption.] The Whip is very keen on Charlotte Tilbury, so I will pass on her request for further information. I think you are putting in a request as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. The important point is that we need to make sure that businesses know that there is this new opportunity out there in India, and we need to maximise the exploitation of the new tariffs.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
According to the Government’s figures, this trade deal will add only 0.14% to our national GDP. What are we giving up in return for that measly amount of benefit, and is it really worth sacrificing our commitment to human rights to sign these kinds of trade deals with countries and leaders who are reported to have breached human rights?
Chris Bryant
I will talk about human rights in a moment, but if the hon. Gentleman can come up with a better way of finding a 0.14% increase in GDP, I would be very happy to hear it. Frankly, the idea that we would just turn our backs on one of the biggest economies and largest democracies in the world, and not say yes to a trade deal, is for the birds.
There is a whole series of human rights issues that we always want to raise with our trade partners, and we do so. When we are negotiating a free trade agreement, they are not necessarily a central part of it, but in this deal, for the first time ever, we have clauses on a whole range of human rights-related issues. The hon. Gentleman could easily point out that these are not legally enforceable, but they are an opportunity—both at the first review, which will come at entry into force, and on future occasions, which are laid out in the free trade agreement—for us to talk through these issues. Human rights issues are primarily the responsibility of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, through which we raise issues relating to Kashmir, particular individuals, labour laws and so on.
I am aware that non-tariff barriers are being removed through improved customs processes, reductions in technical barriers to trade, increased facilitation of digital trade, supportive intellectual property commitments and greater collaboration on new technologies. This will all help to make trade quicker, cheaper and easier.
On services, which are obviously very important for us as a services superpower, market access is locked in, including ensuring that UK companies are treated on an equal footing with Indian companies. The deal includes India’s first ever financial services and telecoms chapters. The free trade agreement is expected to boost services exports by £1.6 billion. On procurement, which again is very important for the UK, brand-new access to India’s federal procurement market will be locked in, guaranteeing access to approximately 40,000 tenders per year, worth at least £38 billion per annum, and exclusive treatment for UK companies. For the first time, UK companies will have access to India’s procurement portal.
I hope the colleagues will agree that CETA is a good deal for the UK, but I want to respond to a couple of points made in the Business and Trade Committee’s report. First, the deal will only be of any use if it is actually used by UK companies. We know that it will not always be plain sailing, thanks to varying rules in different states and provinces—that point was made in evidence to the Committee—the staging of tariff liberalisation will need explaining, and non-tariff barriers can be just as important as tariff barriers.
As the first Minister for trade policy and for exports, I am keen to ensure that businesses have all the support they need to exploit this deal. That is why we are protecting the Department for Business and Trade team in India, and why we have already engaged with more than 5,000 UK businesses on how to exploit CETA, through guidance, events and roadshows. As I said earlier, this is not just about Scotch whisky; it is also about Fever-Tree ginger ale to go with it and its Indian tonic water. We have also provided specific support to the UK cosmetics industry to exploit the cut in cosmetics tariffs, which will benefit companies such as Charlotte Tilbury and Dr.PAWPAW. As the Committee suggests, once we get to entry into force, we will monitor the operation of CETA’s provisions, including through the regular reviews built into the agreement.
This is also not the full stop in our developing relationship with India. Vision 2035, agreed with India alongside the free trade agreement, sets out a shared framework for deeper co-operation across technology, defence, climate and strategic exports, reinforcing the long-term direction of the bilateral partnership. We will also try to resolve other market access issues not solved in the free trade agreement—for example, legal services, recognition of qualifications and other specific state-level barriers. The UK is open to continuing negotiations for a bilateral investment treaty, as long as it works for UK businesses.
As I have said, this is a trade agreement, but I want to assure Members that it also promotes British values. We have secured India’s first ever chapters on anti-corruption, consumer protections, labour rights, the environment, gender and development, and the agreement includes the strongest environmental commitments that India has ever made in an FTA. Our key commitments and red lines have been maintained throughout, including protecting the NHS; ensuring that our immigration system is not affected; carving out defence and protecting our export controls; excluding sensitive agricultural sectors, including pork, chicken, eggs and milled rice; maintaining our food standards and animal welfare levels; and keeping the carbon border adjustment mechanism out of the deal.
Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, so I am glad that the European Union has now reached political agreement on its own FTA with India, for which it seems the UK deal was used as a baseline, but the UK retains first mover advantage. I am hopeful that we will get to entry into force before the end of the summer, so that UK businesses can start exploiting the reduced tariffs this year, while the EU will still take some time to achieve ratification, and only the UK has secured access to India’s £38 billion federal procurement market.
Let me make one final point. The UK is a trading nation: we rely on free and fair trade, and we believe that global trade needs a set of rules. The World Trade Organisation will meet in Cameroon in the next few weeks. We believe that it needs upholding and reforming so that it can tackle the challenges of today, including electronic commerce, unfair subsidies, dumping and secure supply chains with agility and dependability. However, we also believe that trade agreements such as these, along with our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, help to secure our prosperity and enhance our international standing. We are still pursuing new or enhanced deals with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Türkiye, Switzerland and Greenland, and we are completing the text of our economic prosperity deal with the United States of America and our deal with the European Union. I commend this deal to the House, and I congratulate the former Ministers who secured it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not want to simply agree with him for the sake of it: it is not easy for Chancellors of whatever flavour to balance the books, but where we have wonderful industries such as all our drinks and spirits industries, including, if I may say so, our English wine industry, the Government must do everything they can to promote them—
Andrew Griffith
And Welsh, and from other parts of this wonderful kingdom.
This Government, as the previous Government, have by and large got the importance of the wonderful Scottish whisky industry, but it is important to do anything that can be done to help. Of course, the way that one reduces taxes over time is by making tough decisions on Government spending, which would be one of the key things the Conservatives would do in order to be able to lower those taxes.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who is no longer in his place, made an important point about the protection of ceramics and related industries, such as our brick and energy-intensive chemicals industries, which are all important. A trade deal, however wonderful it may or may not be, will do nothing to help the ruinously high energy costs faced by the ceramics, brick and chemicals industries, along with so many others. This debate is not about that issue and it is not the responsibility of the Minister, but it is nevertheless an important factor; if we are going to lower barriers and frictions so that we can boost trade, increase the prosperity of our citizens and grow our economy, that absolutely must involve the full stack, including energy and what one does about employment law and regulation.
Andrew Griffith
The document produced by the Select Committee lays out the impact for defence, modest as I believe it is. I will leave it to those on the Government Front Bench to answer my right hon. Friend’s important question about security—
Chris Bryant
I wonder if I could talk through the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis): our export control system for any exports from the UK into any other country in the world bears in mind diversion from one country to another. That is a very important part of what we look at. The FTA does not affect that process at all.
Andrew Griffith
I hope that my right hon. Friend is reassured to a degree by the Minister’s response. I will move on now—you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my speech is not as comprehensive as the work of the Select Committee.
I would be grateful if the Government could clarify a few points about the position on food and agricultural products. There are protections for sugar, chicken, eggs and pork, and that has been welcomed by producers. However, there are concerns from the British dairy industry about opening the market, which describes the deal as a one-way street: dairy is excluded from UK exports to India, yet tariffs on Indian dairy coming into the UK are removed.
Chris Bryant
I will try to keep up as we are going along, if that is okay. On dairy, I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making; it has been made to me before and was also made in Committee. However, I am not aware of any Indian cheese company that has been able to export into the UK, as it would still need a licence. We were very keen to secure arrangements so that we were not abandoning any of our food standards, which obviously have to be met before any export can come here.
Andrew Griffith
I will try to leave the Minister with a short list of questions, rather than going through each and every one as we go.
Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said—perhaps we can revert to this later—there are also concerns about the Government’s hypocrisy in respect of pesticides and animal welfare, particularly with regard to crustaceans. I do not know whether the Minister has quite the same degree of expertise in crustacean welfare and in particular prawn eyestalk ablation, which sounds more trivial here than it would to the prawn whose eyestalks are being ablated. Those concerns are particularly relevant because despite the Government publishing and vaunting their virtue in terms of animal welfare, these poor blinded prawns seem to be victims under this deal. [Interruption.] I would be happy to give way to the Minister on prawn eyestalk ablation, which is an important point; perhaps, on winding up, he could make a more general point on trade deals and how the Government will protect our animal welfare and food safety standards.
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend puts the point in a better and more informed way than me. It is important, and it is for the Government to set out very clearly how they propose to maintain or create a level playing field on these matters so that producers operating here to British standards are not disadvantaged, while we all get the benefits of trade and prosperity that I spoke of.
Chris Bryant
We are all joking about it, but this is a serious matter. The centre of the point is that whatever the tariffs may do, companies can only sell products in the UK that meet our food standards—precisely the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). In order to ensure that is true, companies have to have a licence to sell in the UK. In addition, all Indian aquaculture products are currently subject to intensified controls with 50% consignment checks at the border. This is one of the many areas where we need to ensure that we protect our producers in this country, who are abiding by very high standards. I could apply that to all the different agriculture and foods that we are talking about, as well as to aquaculture.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the Minister for that intervention; I drew some comfort from it, but we will have to see the detail of the exact crustacean protections we end up with.
Finally, there is one glaring area that—even beyond the missing benefits to our important services industry—was a point of difference in the negotiations that we conducted and a reason why, when we were in government, we did not consummate that deal and why the negotiations remained outstanding. The Leader of the Opposition has been very clear about this: when she was leading the negotiations, she refused to sign this deal because of the double contributions convention. The Minister will know precisely what I mean by that.
We still have not seen the detail of that convention, and every Member of the House should be concerned. This is a very limited part of the process of scrutiny of trade deals—the rights of Parliament are perhaps not fully discharged just by the CRaG process. However, we have not even seen what the Minister referred to earlier as the HMRC agreement on this. What it means in substance—I will choose my words very precisely—is that Indian workers who come here to work will not pay a penny in British national insurance contributions, and neither will their employers.
The Government decided that they would open this deal—this two-tier tax system for India—at precisely the same time as hiking their jobs tax on every single British worker. I am happy to be rebutted or corrected, but by my calculations, under this agreement it could be up to £10,000 a year cheaper to hire a software developer on an average British salary from India than to hire someone from Britain for the same role, as employers will not be liable for those national insurance contributions. These are big numbers, and this will mean a big disadvantage to hiring an identical British worker at a time when there are 9 million people of working age not in work and when unemployment is rising—in fact, it has risen every month under this Government.
Andrew Griffith
I am glad to hear agreement across the House on the desire not to have a two-tier system. We all understand the need to pay our taxes to support our public services, but it will not feel right if two people are sitting cheek by jowl, side by side in the same place of employment—a factory or other work environment—but are contributing at a very different rate to the Exchequer for the public services that we all support.
Andrew Griffith
Let me finish my point, and then there will be plenty of opportunity for interventions. I will not anticipate the Minister’s point, but there are other agreements such as this in place—I want to be full and clear about that.
There are social security agreements where contributions are both paid in and taken out. We have them with the European Union, for example. They are a long-standing feature, and they were under previous Governments. Again, to be very clear and open, we also have a limited number of agreements like this with some selected other countries, including the high-skilled economies of Japan, South Korea and Chile and, to some degree, Canada. But we do not have an agreement like this of any sort with a mostly English-speaking nation of 1.5 billion people, all of whom would potentially be better off availing themselves of this arbitrage—this two-tier system—under this deal.
Astonishingly, this part of the deal was left out of UK Government communications, so not only do we have two-tier substance in terms of the economics of the deal; we also have two-tier communications. The Indian Government boasted about this element as a significant and attractive feature of the deal, but there was not a single mention of it in the UK Government communications. That, in and of itself, should send alarm bells ringing about this two-tier tax deal.
Chris Bryant
I was not going to make the point that the hon. Member went on to make—that his Government signed up to lots of similar arrangements—but I was going to respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). It is important that we make it clear that under the double contributions convention, a detached Indian worker and their employer in the UK would need to pay into the Indian provident fund. On top of that, they will need to pay £3,105 in NHS surcharges, and up to £769 in visa fees. On top of that, the employer would pay an immigration skills charge of £3,000, and £525 to issue a certificate of sponsorship, so I do not think that the numbers add up in the way that the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley was suggesting.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The shadow Secretary of State has already spoken for longer than the Minister, which must be something of a record. I appreciate that there have been a lot of interventions on the shadow Secretary of State from Government Front Benchers, but perhaps he can draw his remarks to a close. The Minister will have ample time to make his points in the wind-up.
Charlie Maynard
I certainly like the States.
While we are making comparisons with Europe, I note that under the UK’s free trade agreement 92% of our exports to India will enter tariff-free. Under the EU’s deal, 96.6% of its exports can enter India tariff-free. Perhaps there is some logic, after all, to bigger trade blocs having more leverage. I wholeheartedly agree with the comments from the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) about national insurance contributions. I am also deeply concerned about that, as is my party. I also take the Minister’s point about visa fees and everything else, but by the time we add all those together, I think that UK Inc—whether in my constituency of Witney or across the UK—will still be at a major disadvantage. This risks undermining British labour—
Charlie Maynard
I really hope I am wrong, but I don’t think I am.
Moving beyond the numbers, I highlight the concerns of civil society groups, which many Members have mentioned, about clauses in the agreement on labour, the environment and human rights being characterised by a pattern of aspirational language and a lack of enforceability, with the result that they are not subject to the dispute settlement mechanism—cute words but no teeth. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a set of minimum standards to benchmark future trade agreements, which would include human rights, conflict and oppression and environmental, labour and safety standards, where they can be negotiated, based on a UK trade and human rights policy and a trade and development policy.
I want to ask some question about India’s role in busting the trade sanctions that the UK has put on Russia. To recap: Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, and both the UK and the EU banned direct imports of Russian oil and petroleum products in December 2022. However, a loophole stayed open that allowed derivative products including petrochemicals imported from third countries into the UK to continue using Russian-origin crude oil and gas. In July 2025, the EU amended its sanctions legislation to target imports of petrochemicals from third countries that used Russian-origin oil. This has now taken effect in the EU. The EU has blocked this loophole. In October 2025, the UK announced a further sanctions package targeting specific third-country entities that supported Russian fossil fuels. That included India’s Nayara Energy, which is part-owned by Russia’s state oil company Rosneft.
On 2 December 2025, the Trade Minister told the Business and Trade Committee, of which I am a member,
“we want India to do less business with Russia because we want Russia’s machine to be debilitated. There are lots of things that I want to achieve in the world and not all of them can be achieved through FTAs.”
The Trade Minister and the trade team fully understood, therefore, that India was, and is, selling Russia-originated petchems into the UK. We had leverage when we were negotiating the FTA, but instead the UK decided to turn a blind eye to India’s sanction-busting, helping Russia’s war effort. This continues right now, with the UK importing jet fuel and other petrochemicals from India that are manufactured with Russian oil and gas. The refining loophole is still there because His Majesty’s Government have not yet legislated to ban imports of derivatives from Russian crude. The Government say that they expect a ban to be enforced in spring 2026, whenever that is.
Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air shows that between the ban on direct imports coming into force in 2022 and the end of 2025, the UK has imported £4 billion-worth of jet fuel and other oil products made at refineries in India and Turkey, which run partially on Russian crude, and that every month the UK delays banning oil products made from Russian crude, it is effectively writing the Kremlin a cheque for around £44 million.
It gets worse. Four of the five largest oil refiners in India are majority-owned by the Indian Government, with Reliance being the fifth, so it is not just the Indian refiners that are helping Russia by selling us petchems; the state of India itself is right now selling jet fuel and other petrochemicals derived from Russian oil and gas into the UK. What have we done about it? We have signed a free trade agreement with India. To add insult to injury, the loophole to be closed, as far as I can tell, just covers oil derivatives, but petrochemicals are derived from natural gas, too. What is happening with those?
I have five questions for the Minister. First, what is his justification for signing an FTA with a country that is helping Russia to breach its sanctions? Secondly, was this issue discussed in the FTA negotiations? Thirdly, does the planned ban cover petrochemicals imported from India and other third countries derived from either oil or gas? Fourthly, please will the Minister tell us the specific date on which the ban will come into force, what steps will be required to effect it and what the timeline is for each of those steps? Finally, what are the reasons for the delay in implementing the ban? Why have the Government not already closed the loophole?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member is right. The UK as a second-tier power has left itself poorer, as the Minister, to his credit, has acknowledged, as did the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard); it is just a pity that the Liberal Democrats do not agree with me and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that we should rejoin.
Stephen Gethins
I did say that the previous intervention would be my last, but I really ought to give way to the Minister.
Chris Bryant
If the hon. Member is in favour of collective bargaining, surely he is in favour of Scotland doing its collective bargaining within the United Kingdom.
Stephen Gethins
But if only we were listened to! We feel about as listened to as the leader of the Scottish Labour party at the moment, and that is not terribly well listened to. I am a great believer in a 21st-century model of Union based on the treaties—one that listens to its different member states, makes its members richer and gives them more rights, rather than a pretty out-of-date and outmoded 18th-century version of the Union. I am glad the Minister has given me the opportunity to make that point.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) rightly talked about services and other issues. The EU has negotiated higher levels of freedom of movement. On services—again, it would be remiss of me not to talk about the higher education sector, and I wonder whether the Minister will mention that when he sums up. He will be aware of the huge impact that trade with India has on our higher education sector. In Dundee, for example, there was a huge amount of student recruitment from India—more than from the entire European Union, although post Brexit that fell off and we were left more isolated. There were 810 Indian students in 2022-23, and 365 in 2024-25—a decrease which led to that university’s significant financial crisis. It is not alone in that within the higher education sector.
The former principal, Shane O’Neill, talked about the “negative impact” of UK policy, and Universities Scotland has said that the loss of dependants and the “toxic” rhetoric around migration in the UK have had detrimental impact on the higher education sector. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I still do a little bit of teaching at the University of St Andrews, and I have to mention the value that comes from having more international universities. It is not just about the value that comes from the income; it is the value to the richness of the teaching regime, through our students having access to others from across the world, and to our research. It is exceptionally important. I wonder whether the Minister will touch on that point, because UK policy has had a hugely detrimental impact on my constituency, particularly in relation to the financial challenges faced by the University of Dundee, and I am truly sorry to say that we saw the toxic legacy of the Conservatives’ migration policy continued by the Labour party in government.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North spoke about scrutiny. If we were Members of the European Parliament we would get full access to the trade agreements, so will the Minister look at the way that the European Parliament deals with issues such as voting rights, scrutiny and publication, and see what examples of good practice the UK Parliament could pursue?
I am glad that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) has not taken up the offer of being across the road at No. 10 and that he is here. I am pleased that he raised his constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal —he made a great case and, if he does not mind me saying, continues the good work done by Martin Docherty-Hughes. I think we all want to wish Mr Johal a happy birthday, but we all sincerely hope that he will have a happier birthday this time next year. I thank the hon. Member for his work, and I add my voice to those asking the Minister to respond.
Finally, a number of hon. Members have raised the question of Russian oil. Will the Minister set out what is happening with Russian oil, what conversations were had with Indian officials and whether there are any refineries that could be targeted as part of the broader sanctions process?
Chris Bryant
By leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the debate. I know that you were once in this job, so if I get anything wrong, please feel free to intervene and correct me. I am going to crack through as many as possible of the questions that have been put to me. I know that hon. Members like to hear answers, so I will try to answer their questions as fast as I possibly can.
As always, it was a great delight to see the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) at the Dispatch Box. He had a bit of a rant about Brexit and how much he is still in favour of it—he will probably be the last person still in favour of Brexit, just as he is the last person still in favour of the Truss Budget, because he helped write it. He made a legitimate point about services. Of course we would like to go further on services, but there are two things that I would say to him. First, we have secured significant advantages in relation to telecoms and construction services, and I have already referred to the better deal that we have had on procurement than the European Union. Secondly, we have been guaranteed most favoured nation status in 40 different sectors, including accounting and auditing services, architectural services, engineering services, higher education, building cleaning services, photographic services, packaging services, convention services and interior design services.
That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) about whether this is going to be a living process. We do not need to return to the negotiating table, because we have a structure built into this FTA that enables us to take things forward. In fact, the first review of the deal will happen on the date it comes into force—as I said earlier, I hope that will be before the summer.
Chris Bryant
I am keen not to give way again, because there is not much time and I have to answer all the questions that I have already been asked.
Turning to legal services, of course we would have much preferred to have been able to secure legal services as part of this deal. We have a very strong legal services sector in the UK—it is excellent. I was with the head of the Law Society in Riyadh last week, celebrating some of the changes and opportunities that are happening in Saudi Arabia, for instance. The difficulty is that, as the Indians made very clear throughout the whole of the negotiating process, law is a noble profession. It is very specifically understood as such within the Indian constitution, so that would have required significant changes to primary legislation in India, and that was not something we were able to achieve.
Similarly, we would have preferred to have been able to secure a bilateral investment treaty, but we stand ready to start that process whenever India would like to do so. I am glad that we have a digital trade chapter, because so much of the trade we do internationally is now digital, and lots of other arrangements do not end up with that provision.
On services, the way we transacted this deal means it is supported by the Federation of Small Businesses, HSBC, Standard Chartered, EY, TheCityUK and Revolut, and I do not think they think of the deal as “soggy poppadoms” at all; I think they think of it as a fine tandoori.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and several other Members referred to Kashmir, and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) gave us some shocking stories about the situation there. I was once the curate in High Wycombe, which has a large Kashmiri population. They have felt many of the issues relating to Kashmir ever since the 1940s. It has been a long-standing British position that India and Pakistan need to come to a settlement of their agreement. For the purposes of the CETA, the core text chapters define India’s territory as set out in India’s constitution, but emphasise that that is without prejudice to territorial sovereignty or compatibility with international law.
An important point that nobody has referred to is that Pakistan enjoys preferential tariff rates when trading with the UK under the developing countries trading scheme, which offers significant preferential access. Approximately 94% of Pakistani goods are eligible for 0% tariffs, and that runs out for India three years after the FTA enters into force. The deal is not silent, as it were, on the relationship between the two.
Some Members have said that there is nothing in the FTA about human rights. First, that is not true; there are provisions. It is also not true to say that none of it is legally binding. The whole agreement is legally binding, and review processes are built into it in a way that makes it possible for us to monitor human rights. I have to say, the EU deal does not enter into human rights issues either—traditionally, it does not. We want every element of how we engage with another country to reflect the values we want to protect, including opposition to the death penalty, to forced labour and to so many other things.
Chris Bryant
I will not, if the hon. Member does not mind.
A lot of that toolkit lies outside trade. It lies with the human rights monitoring that our high commission in India does regularly. We raise all the individual issues that have been referred to.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the hon. Member, because I can never resist him. We used to be on a Select Committee together.
Stephen Gethins
I have great respect for the Minister, but he talks about the EU deal not covering human rights. We are all covered by the European convention on human rights, but that umbrella does not exist for countries such as India. That is important, especially because the Minister’s party and my party are committed to remaining within that framework.
Chris Bryant
I am as committed to remaining within the European convention on human rights as I ever was, as are the UK Government. It would be a derogation of our international standing around the world if we departed from it. That is one of the many reasons that I oppose not only the Conservative party, which seems to have gone doolally in recent years, but those Members who were elected as Conservatives and have now joined another political party.
I want to make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East and to others who have referred to these issues that Kashmiri Britons are of course listened to. The kind of stories that we have heard concern us.
The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) pushed in the other direction on Brexit, but he made a good point with which I completely agree. I might slightly disagree with him about the precise amount of harm that Brexit has done to our trade opportunities in the UK, but I note that a very large number of UK businesses no longer export to the European Union, and that is a massive failure for the UK. That is why we are keen to secure a better deal with the European Union, and that is what we are working on. He talked about sanctions and Russia. I am appearing before the Select Committee on which he sits, so he gets many bites of the cherry. I say to the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), that when I come to talk about trade sanctions in the next few weeks, I will be happy to go into the specific details that he has raised on Russia.
I gently say to the hon. Member for Witney that I get a bit irritated when I hear Lib Dems talking about Russia, because I remember being in this House in 2014 when Russia first invaded Crimea. I know he was not in the House, but the Liberal Democrats were part of the Government. It was not just that Government but many other Governments who essentially allowed Putin to take Crimea with impunity, which has left us with some of the problems we have today. I completely agree with him that we need to debilitate the Russian system as much as possible. We have introduced sanctions on entities, including India’s Nayara Energy Ltd, to ensure that we disrupt Russia’s energy revenues. We are undermining the shadow fleet wherever possible. We have announced a further 500 sanctions.
Chris Bryant
I am reluctant to give way, because I have only another four minutes. The hon. Member is on the Select Committee, so he will soon be able to ask me as many questions as he wants.
Chris Bryant
It will not be one second; that is an untruth.
On 25 October, we said that we will extend our ban on the import of oil products refined in third countries using Russian crude oil.
I will refer specifically to the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). It is that constituent’s 39th birthday today. My hon. Friend knows that I have met his constituent’s family. It is good that some of the charges against him have already been dealt with and he has been acquitted. We want to see the rest of the charges—I think another eight charges have been laid against him—dealt with as swiftly as possible. We make that argument to the Indian Government as frequently as we can. My hon. Friend did not refer to this, but I think he would agree that there should be a full investigation into his constituent’s allegations of torture. That is an important part of us maintaining an open relationship with India.
The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) made a speech primarily about one specific issue. It was brief and to the point, for which I commend her—if only I could learn to do the same. She referred to the double contributions convention. I just point out to her that the previous Conservative Government made almost identical arrangements with a large number of countries, including Chile, Japan, South Korea, all of the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Barbados, Canada, Jamaica, Mauritius, the Philippines, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Turkey and the United States of America. This deal will not undermine British workers—that is the Select Committee’s finding—and it will not make it cheaper to use Indian workers. This agreement is about highly skilled workers employed by Indian companies on a temporary basis paying contributions to their own country rather than in the UK. The deal has not finally been struck; negotiations are ongoing. That deal will be subject to its own process of going through the House, during which Members will be able to raise points.
Chris Bryant
I will not, as I have only two minutes.
The Chair of the Select Committee made lots of good points. He referred to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and said that a votable motion was guaranteed by the then Minister in 2010. I was the Minister, and I am not sure that I then guaranteed a votable motion, but I take his point about greater scrutiny. When I come to talk about the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, I hope we will be able to deal with some of the other issues to which he referred.
The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) referred to higher education. I am delighted to say that higher education is one of the things that MFN applies to as part of the deal. I was proud that the Prime Minister was able to open two new higher education campuses in India when he visited in October. The hon. Member makes a fair point about the European Parliament’s good practice on trade deals, which I will reflect on.
I did not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said, but I understood the sentiment with which he said it. I just make the point to him that the whole agreement is legally binding. That is why I am glad that we have secured chapters in our deal that have not been in any others.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) said that Government figures seemed too low. One of the figures is probably too low, and that is because we tried to err on the conservative side. In particular, some of the figures presume that we will not be doing any additional trade as a result of the FTA, but I think that we will. I think we could say that we will do better.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said that it was an enormous irony for a remainer such as myself to be standing here and proclaiming this. The thing is, I deal with the world as I find it, not as I would wish it to be. I cannot unmake the past, but I can make sure that we exploit the present to the best benefit of British business, and that is what this trade deal does.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK-India Free Trade Agreement.
Enhanced Free Trade Agreement with Switzerland: Round 9 Negotiations
Chris Bryant Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The ninth round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement (FTA) with Switzerland took place in London between 12 and 16 January 2026.
The new deal aims to support British businesses, back British jobs, and put more money in people’s pockets.
The enhanced agreement with Switzerland demonstrates the UK Government commitment to economic growth through strengthening trade ties with our 10th biggest trading partner—a relationship worth £49.0 billion in the 12 months ending September 2025 (ONS, UK total trade, seasonally adjusted).
The FTA aims to deliver long-term certainty for UK services firms by locking in access to the Swiss market, guaranteeing the free flow of data and cementing business travel arrangements.
The trading relationship supported 130,000 services jobs across the UK in 2020, including legal, consultancy and finance sectors (OECD trade in employment database and covers all jobs directly and indirectly supported by exports from service industries to Switzerland in 2020).
The new agreement will update the current goods-focused UK-Swiss FTA, signed in 2019 and largely based on an EU-Swiss deal from 1972. This does not cover services, investment, digital or data, despite services accounting for over 60% of UK trade with Switzerland (ONS, UK total trade, seasonally adjusted).
We have already extended the services mobility agreement between the UK and Switzerland for a further four years to 2029.
The latest round saw progress in multiple areas:
Services and investment
Productive sessions took place on services and investment. Talks remain focused on market access for UK services exports.
Market distorting practices
Good progress was made during this round on a range of topics relating to state-owned enterprises and subsidies.
Digital
Progress was made on digital trade with the UK seeking commitments to guarantee the free flow of data across both countries.
Intellectual property
During this round, the UK and Switzerland discussed intellectual property rights areas. Negotiations will continue with the aim of agreeing a comprehensive framework for the protection of intellectual property.
Goods
Discussions continue to focus on goods market access and on the goods chapter text, which will help streamline the process for UK exports to Switzerland and bilateral trade in goods.
Environment and labour
Negotiators provisionally closed the trade and sustainable development chapter, which demonstrates the UK and Switzerland’s joint commitment to maintaining high standards of environmental and labour protection including through multilateral environmental agreements such as the UNFCCC and the Paris agreement.
Next steps on FTA negotiations
Immediately following the round, my colleague the Secretary of State for Business and Trade met President of the Swiss Confederation Guy Parmelin in Switzerland to take stock of the progress in the FTA.
The Government are focussed on securing outcomes in an enhanced FTA that boost economic growth for the UK and Ministers will continue to update Parliament on the progress of negotiations.
The Government will only ever sign a trade agreement which aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors, alongside protections for the national health service.
[HCWS1292]
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
From April, every pub and live music venue will get 15% off its new business rates bill, on top of the £4.3 billion of support announced in the Budget. Bills will then be frozen in real terms for a further two years. We have also raised the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, meaning that 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance contributions this year. We are also going to allow pubs to open later in England and Scotland during the world cup, because they have already qualified, and I hope that Wales will also qualify so that we will be able to do the same for Wales.
Mr Snowden
From the Queens in Lytham to the Hop Shoppe in St Annes, the Hand & Dagger in Treales and the Thatched House in Poulton, Fylde is blessed with many wonderful pubs, but they were hit very hard by the changes to national insurance, and the looming business rates changes that will hit them hard have many of them worried. Some of the changes that have been announced are welcome but will not go as far as mitigating all the cost increases that pubs are facing. What more plans do the Government have to support such pubs?
Chris Bryant
I note the hon. Gentleman’s support for pubs in his constituency. It is obviously intense—he basically took us on a pub crawl there. If he is looking for a Valentine’s day dinner, perhaps with his wife, the Coach & Horses in Freckleton is offering two mains and two drinks for £25.99. But we will keep it quiet so that it is a surprise for his wife—or whoever else he takes. [Laughter.]
Chris Bryant
Maybe you will be taking his wife to the Coach & Horses, Mr Speaker—who knows?
On a serious point, we are fully aware of the problems that pubs and live music venues have been facing for a considerable period of time. For live music venues, we have been trying to encourage arena tickets to put an extra £1 on the ticket, on a voluntary basis, so as to be able to support live music venues. I am conscious that over the years many pubs have closed. The hon. Gentleman was not in the House under the previous Administration, but some 7,000 pubs closed in those 14 years, which is something like one every 14 hours. We are conscious of the problems, and we want to do everything we can to help.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
Some 46% of the UK’s trade is with the EU, but we want to do far better, achieving trade with the EU that is as frictionless as possible. We are in the process of fine tuning the deal that we reached last year on food and drink, and negotiating on joining the single electricity market. We want to improve business mobility and secure the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. We have just appointed three new trade envoys—one for France, one for Germany and one for Italy—as part of our exports drive.
Rachel Blake
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response and am encouraged by the progress that is being made. When does he expect the UK-EU summit to take place? Is he expecting a completion of the negotiations on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and the youth experience scheme? Will he also update us on the approach to touring artists, to help ensure that they can access EU markets? That would make such a difference to the thriving cultural scene in the west end.
Chris Bryant
On touring artists, we are absolutely determined to secure that—not least because I have personally promised Elton John that we will, as has the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] I see the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) chuntering. I think he is bidding to be a trade envoy for some country. If he would like to come and talk to me later, we can have a discussion about it.
The truth of the matter is that we had a terrible deal with the European Union. We need to improve it, and we are working at pace to try and deliver that. I want British businesses to be able to export without friction into the European market, because we know that is good for them.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Business Secretary raised some eyebrows at the weekend by suggesting that MPs’ pay should be linked to economic growth. Who does the Trade Minister think should get the biggest pay rise? Is it the Conservatives and Reform, who have probably knocked up to 8% off our GDP; Labour MPs, who are contributing to as much as 0.5% with all their accumulated trade deals, including with the EU; or Lib Dem MPs, who are suggesting a customs union that could put 2.2%—
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Liberal Democrats are calling for a new UK-EU customs union—
Sarah Olney
Still! That would cut red tape for businesses across the country, boost growth by more than 2.2% and raise at least £25 billion a year in tax revenue. The Prime Minister’s chief economic adviser has recommended a customs union with the EU as one of the most effective ways of generating growth, the Health Secretary has talked up the benefits of a customs union and the Deputy Prime Minister has also suggested that countries within a customs union tend to see stronger economic growth. However, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade told the Financial Times last week that negotiating a customs union would be “foolish”. Will the Minister please explain how the Secretary of State plans to deliver growth without a customs union?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady knows that I think Brexit was a terrible, self-inflicted mistake. We need to make sure that we achieve what was promised by the Brexiteers, some of whom are sitting on the Conservative Benches, when they said we would achieve frictionless trade with the European Union as a result of our deal. I think that we can, first, do that on food and when we secure our SPS deal. We are working on the electricity market as well. Then we need to proceed with trying to ensure business mobility so that people can travel across the European Union and, as I said, we need to make sure that British artists and performers can perform across the whole of the European Union.
I have to say that it feels—I hate to use the term “groundhog day” in relation to the Lib Dems, but I can remember when they were in government. O Lord.
Chris Bryant
No, well quite. This is the problem: the Lib Dems never remember when they were in government and they landed us with half the problems that we are trying to sort out today.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The UK is the fourth largest exporter in the world and the second largest in services, but we want to do even better, which is why we are pushing forward our new trade deals to cut barriers for UK businesses, strengthening UK Export Finance, providing tailored market advice and targeting resources so that businesses can take advantage of those deals.
Jayne Kirkham
I am grateful to the Minister for last week meeting me and a representative of Watson-Marlow, a business in my constituency, to discuss barriers to export. Many businesses I have spoken to have been frustrated about the difficulty of moving people, goods and equipment to Europe post Brexit, and they face significant additional costs and admin. Fugro and Pendennis yachts have raised with me issues they have experienced with securing visas for their staff on short-term offshore projects. What steps can the Minister take with colleagues at the Home Office to ensure that some of those barriers are reduced?
Chris Bryant
First, it was great that my hon. Friend and other MPs brought individual constituency businesses along, because one of the things I want to do as Minister for Trade is try to persuade all 650 colleagues to come along with individual businesses so we can work out where there are barriers to export and try to encourage export growth. If we could release all the MPs, who probably know the businesses in their constituencies far better than the Department does, we would drive forward export growth. She is absolutely right that there are issues with visas and business mobility that we need to address. It is one of the things that the Home Office and the Department are discussing with our European allies. We need to do better on this, and we also need to get to a place where we have mutual recognition of professional qualifications so that people can simply transact their business more effectively.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
With reference to what the Minister said earlier about trade and investment envoys, I remind him that I was a trade and investment envoy to Georgia and Armenia some years ago. The problem is that the trade and investment envoys are now pretty much all Labour, whereas previously, under all Prime Ministers, they were cross-party. Can I suggest that the Government revisit the strength of having a cross-party approach? That might help business exports. I think he publicly offered—unless I misheard—for me to become a trade envoy again; if I was approached, I might do that. On a serious point, on UK Export Finance in high-risk investment areas, such as rebuilding Syria by getting jobs and investment into that country quickly, can I ask that UK Export Finance underwrites with insurance those high-risk investments?
Chris Bryant
I noted that there was another application, but just because the right hon. Gentleman has applied for the job, it does not necessarily mean that he will get it. He makes a good point about UK Export Finance, particularly in war-torn and other difficult areas. It is why we set aside a specific amount of money for Ukraine. I was delighted to be in Kyiv the best part of 10 days ago, where the Russian Government are, I would argue, engaging in war crimes by deliberately targeting the heating systems in the city—many elderly and vulnerable people have no heating, electricity or access to water. I was very proud to see Scottish steel and British architects designing the bridges that are helping Ukrainians to get to work again after the original bridges were blown up when the Russians tried to invade as part of their full-scale invasion. He makes a good point about export finance. I have also had discussions about how we can roll that out in relation to Syria.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Last week I visited the brilliant family-run Clark Door company in my Carlisle constituency. Clark Door designs, manufactures and exports right across the globe, and supplies venues such as the Tate Modern, the Qatar national centre and, topically as we approach next weekend’s super bowl, the National Football League media centre in New York. What support can the Government give to exporters such as Clark Door so that their pioneering research and development ensures their continued export success, and will the Minister visit Carlisle to take a look behind the—Clark—door?
Chris Bryant
We are doing well on UK exports, which were up to £929 billion in the 12 months ending November 2025—up 4% on the year before. I am happy to consider ensuring that UK Research and Innovation, which is part of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, provides R&D support. Getting all our different strategies working together—the trade, business and industrial strategies—combined with UKRI, will drive exports forward. I cannot promise a visit, because I seem to be sent abroad a lot.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Defence and aerospace make up a huge element of our export business. As the Minister knows, plans without resources are hallucinations. The defence investment plan was promised to us in the autumn, and then by the end of the year, but it is still not there. When will the Government get their act together and stop dithering over the defence investment plan so that we can fuel our export economy?
Chris Bryant
Defence is an important part of both our industrial strategy and our export strategy. We are running a series of export campaigns, which are either titled “platinum” or “gold”, and several of them relate to defence expenditure. For instance, when I was in New Zealand just before Christmas, we talked about the potential for the UK to build a new dry dock and provide frigates for the New Zealand navy. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman, who makes a fair point, gets an answer from the Ministry of Defence, which has primary responsibility for that area.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
We know that some British businesses are put off exporting by the costs, particularly the cost of cross-border payments. One solution is the adoption of innovative digital payment methods, which is why I warmly welcomed the Government’s announcement of the transatlantic taskforce for markets of the future. However, since its announcement last September, we have not had a great deal of detail on it from the Government, so will the Minister provide an update on the status of the taskforce and what he hopes it will achieve for our exporters?
Chris Bryant
I will certainly write to the shadow Minister about that. Electronic commerce generally is one thing that we will need to address at the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cameroon at the end of March. There has been a moratorium on tax in relation to that, and we would like to make it permanent—we are discussing that with our international allies.
On exports, I was at Fever-Tree on Monday morning. Its adverts used to say, “If three quarters of your gin and tonic is the tonic, why on earth do you not care about the tonic?” [Interruption.] I note that several Members are querying whether three quarters of their gin and tonic is the tonic—it might be 50:50, or even the other way around. The point is that many really successful businesses in this country, including Fever-Tree, know that three quarters of their business can be exports. That is what we need to drive up.
Gareth Davies
I thank the Minister for that response. This is an area that we genuinely agree on. Digital payment technology will genuinely provide an opportunity for British exporters, so I gently ask the Minister to get on top of the detail on that taskforce and provide an update as soon as he can. We asked DBT Ministers last June exactly what the Government’s strategy on digital payment technology was. We were promised that it would be part of the industrial strategy, but it was missing. Can he explain why?
Chris Bryant
The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), has just whispered in my ear that he met the main providers in this area only a couple of weeks ago. As I say, I will write to the hon. Member with some more detail. Some of these issues are difficult to land because of the international co-operation needed. I am pleased that in some of our trade deals we are talking about not just goods and services but ensuring a digital element, because that is where a lot of our economic future lies.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
We regularly assess Israel’s compliance with, and commitment to, international humanitarian law. It was those assessments that led us in September 2024 to suspend licences where the items might be used in military operations in Gaza. Most of the licences suspended at that time have since expired, but we have continued to refuse licence applications on the same basis.
Iqbal Mohamed
The Secretary of State said that revisiting the pause on arms export licences to Israel was “intrinsically linked” to movement towards a so-called sustainable peace. Since then, during the so-called ceasefire, Israeli forces have killed over 481 Palestinians in Gaza, struck defenceless tents housing cowering families and bombed to kingdom come schools used as civilian shelters. What they have not done is allow the flow of humanitarian aid; instead, 37 international non-governmental organisations have been suspended. Yet this Government continue with a business-as-usual approach to arms trade with Israel. How can the Government justify revisiting the decision to pause arms export licences, rather than suspending arms exports altogether, to pressure Israel to comply with international law?
Chris Bryant
I agree with one part of what the hon. Member said, which is that we do want to see humanitarian aid get to the people who need it, and we need to see a proper, lasting peace, based on peace and justice, working together, and that is our commitment. He is, however, completely wrong to suggest that it is business as usual. We have suspended some licences, in particular where we think that because of Israel’s failure to comply with international humanitarian law they might be used in relation to operations in Gaza. Export licences are required only in relation to military and dual-use equipment, and some of that dual-use equipment is used by non-governmental organisations—armour for journalists and things like that—so of course it is right that we adopt a case-by-case approach. As I say, we have suspended a series of licences where we think that there is a threat to Gaza, but we maintain the export licence criteria that were laid out in Parliament.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply, because he is in China with the Prime Minister. In the last few weeks, our Department has concluded an enhanced trade deal with the Republic of Korea, published a critical minerals strategy and secured the Employment Rights Act 2025, which will see the biggest improvement in employment rights in a generation. At home and abroad, we are resolutely on the side of business, tackling barriers to trade, improving productivity, driving up growth and winning business for Britain. Growth is up, productivity is up and business confidence is up.
Chris Vince
Last weekend, I had the pleasure of visiting the Advanced Aquarium Consultancy in my constituency of Harlow, where they breed, grow and sell coral. I am not going to make any coral jokes, which will be a reef to everybody. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] What is unique about Advanced Aquarium Consultancy is the amount of energy it needs to use. What are the Government doing to support such businesses to bring down energy costs?
Chris Bryant
I was told that my hon. Friend was going to ask a question about choral farms; I was wondering how one farmed tenors, altos and contraltos. He makes a very fair point. As the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), said earlier, there is a whole series of industries for which the cost of energy is a significant part of the problems they face. That is precisely the kind of work that we are engaged in as a Department and as a whole Government, and why it is so important that my hon. Friend is in two Departments and therefore able to bridge these issues.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Yet again, the Business Secretary is not here for his departmental questions. This time, he is in China, trying to sort out the mess that is British steel strategy. He is burning through £2 million a day of taxpayers’ money keeping the Scunthorpe furnace going, the Chinese owners are asking for £1 billion in compensation, and decommissioning could cost more than £2 billion. His steel strategy is literally melting before its long-awaited publication. Given that when the Prime Minister negotiates, Britain loses, what is a good outcome here?
Chris Bryant
Honestly! [Laughter.] Sometimes my heart wants to fall through my body when I hear Conservative Members, who seem to have completely and utterly lost the plot, whether it is enormous, multibillion-pound demands for extra cash they are making or anything else. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) is a chartered accountant, but he does not seem to be able to count, while the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) seems to forget that when she was in government, the previous Prime Minister refused even to visit any of the steel companies in this country. We are determined to get a good outcome.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire attacks the Business Secretary for going to China, but it is important that we engage with all the big economies in the world. China is our fourth biggest export market, and there are lots of businesses doing trade with China. She is absolutely right that we have to get a good set of outcomes for steel, which is why we will soon produce a steel strategy that will answer all her questions. At a previous session of Business and Trade questions, I said that we wanted to publish soon what we will do with our steel trade tariffs after July.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Madam Deputy Speaker, you can see why the Business Secretary needs to be here to answer questions, because I did not hear an answer to my question. I will try a different topic, which is also really important to our constituents. Sixteen million of them got their Royal Mail parcels and letters late this Christmas—my constituents have made many, many complaints. What has the Minister done to hold Royal Mail to account for its unacceptable level of service?
Chris Bryant
I think every single Member has heard similar complaints about service delivery. I am aware of people in my constituency receiving letters for NHS appointments after the appointment itself. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), is meeting Royal Mail next week. We really need to ensure we get a better service across the whole country, and that is something we are absolutely focused on achieving.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Chris Bryant
We have been working hard to secure good outcomes for many businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Walker’s Shortbread is doing a phenomenal job of exporting around the world. I know that because I have seen them in supermarkets in Auckland, Melbourne, Dubai and all over the place. Similarly, we are trying to get a good deal with the United States on whisky. We already have a good deal with India on whisky, and the Prime Minister and others will be talking about whisky in China over the next few days. I do wish the hon. Gentleman would be a bit cheerier. He has one of the most beautiful constituencies in the land. Whether it is the Lairig Ghru, the Rothiemurchus estate, the ospreys in Loch Garten, or Loch an Eilein, it is absolutely beautiful. He could just be a bit cheerier!
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Chris Bryant
We have already had quite a bit of a discussion on business rates and I do not have much to add to that. I will just say that the health and beauty sector is not only a sector in the UK, but one that is vital to our new exports. I am sure the hon. Lady is aware of this, but because we managed to get tariffs down on beauty products in our free trade agreement with India, we have been facilitating lots of businesses going out to India as part of a trade fair to drive up our exports around the world. The whole of the sector has an opportunity to prosper when we manage to secure better free trade agreements.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Almost one in three pubs in this country is a tied pub. In Calder Valley, one such pub saw its payments to Stonegate jump from £800 to £1,700 a week, just days after the six-month probationary period ended. I welcome the Government’s support for pubs, but that pub will still be paying 17 times more to Stonegate each year than it will in business rates. Will the Minister look at those unfair charges, and what can be done in regulation?
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Recently I met with employees and union reps from SYNLAB, a thriving pathology laboratory in Abergavenny. It has been taken over, and now more than 30 jobs are at risk, meaning that these highly skilled opportunities in science, technology, engineering and maths could move out of my constituency. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), for meeting me earlier this week, but would she meet with colleagues in the Welsh Government and myself to discuss how we ensure that we keep these kinds of high-tech jobs in Wales, as it should not just be big cities that benefit from these STEM opportunities?
Chris Bryant
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; it is great that she is a Member of this House because we hear her unambiguous support for small businesses up and down her constituency—not just in the big towns, but in the small villages, as she says. She is right that Wales is a good place for high tech. I am delighted that £1.4 billion of additional investment was announced at the Welsh investment summit in December, taking the total linked investment since the summit was launched to £16 billion. I am sure that that is going to deliver more jobs across south Wales in precisely the way that my hon. Friend asks for.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
While I always enjoy the soliloquies of the Minister of State, it might be an opportunity for the Minister who has responsibility for Royal Mail and postal services to answer this question, given that I wrote to his office about the catastrophic failure of the letter delivery service throughout Shropshire. Would he agree to meet with me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) to discuss resolving that issue?
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister mentioned the music venue levy earlier. He knows that my constituency has amazing music venues, so when will the first payment from that levy be made to those smaller venues?
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that I have changed job since I was pushing that levy very hard. The intention was for those payments to be happening fairly soon. I will ensure that the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts responds directly to my hon. Friend. The levy is a really important opportunity. Every time someone goes to a big arena gig, there should be a £1 levy on their ticket. I urge all promoters, artists and concert arrangers to ensure that that money gets to small music venues.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The use of the toxic chemical paraquat was banned in the UK by the previous Labour Government in 2007. It is associated with the development of Parkinson’s and is deemed too dangerous for use on our own soil, but continues to be produced here and sent elsewhere, perpetuating harms that would not be tolerated at home. What is the policy on exporting UK-manufactured products such as paraquat to other countries?
Chris Bryant
I haven’t the faintest idea. I will write to the hon. Lady.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for Industry for his engagement with Ceramics UK this week, meeting the organisation and ceramics companies from across Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, the west midlands and further afield. He will have heard from them about the importance of getting ceramics firms into the super- charger scheme. I was pleased to hear what he said about trying to extend eligibility, so could he give us an idea of when we might hear some positive news on that front?
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Ajax armoured vehicle programme is currently under threat, but work is due to be completed at the Merthyr Tydfil factory next summer. Could the Minister confirm whether there are any conversations through the UK Defence and Security Exports office around securing an export package for the Ajax vehicle and guaranteeing work at the factory going forwards?
Chris Bryant
Obviously we would like to do so. As the MP for the next-door constituency, and having visited the factory myself, I am keen to ensure that we do so. A large part of this programme is a Ministry of Defence responsibility, and I will make sure that the MOD writes to the hon. Gentleman.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I return again to the steel industry, and thank the steel Minister for the meeting we held a few weeks ago. I was contacted by a couple of employers in Scunthorpe last week who expressed concern about recent reports of publicly funded contracts using foreign-produced steel. Could the Minister give an assurance that British-produced steel will take priority in such cases?
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Latin America, I was interested to note that, after 25 years of negotiations, the EU has announced a trade deal with the Mercosur South American trading group. What is the position of the UK Government on a trading agreement with Mercosur?
Chris Bryant
It is certainly true that now that the EU has secured a Mercosur deal, having taken 25 years to do so, there is a danger that British business will be left out and excluded because there will be preferential rates for European businesses. It is something we are looking at very closely, and I hope to be able to update the right hon. Gentleman very soon. As he knows, I am passionate about trying to increase our exports to Latin America. I would just note that some companies, such as Inca Kola, were created by British firms.
UK Trade Envoy Programme
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The Secretary of State has today made appointments 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 that 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 Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Türkiye;
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Pakistan;
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to France;
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Germany; and
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Italy
In addition to their existing roles, the Secretary of State is pleased to appoint:
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to the Republic of South Africa and to Mauritius;
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Ghana; and
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy to Algeria.
These new appointments are testament to the United Kingdom’s commitment to strengthen bilateral trade and support growth across the nation.
Today’s appointments mean that there are now 32 trade envoys focusing on 73 markets.
[HCWS1255]
Ukraine: Trade Measures
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
Following Russia’s unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine, in May 2022 the United Kingdom led the world by removing all remaining tariffs under our free trade agreement with Ukraine. In 2024, the Government confirmed that tariff liberalisation would be extended on all goods for five years until 31 March 2029, with the exception of poultry and eggs, where a two-year extension until 31 March 2026 was adopted to reflect feedback from those sectors.
The Russian invasion has impaired Ukraine’s ability to export goods and disrupted its usual supply chains and transport routes. That is why it was so important that the UK acted when it did to liberalise remaining tariffs and provide much-needed economic support to Ukraine. As intended, Ukrainian businesses have benefited from the liberalisation, with goods such as cereal grains, poultry and eggs benefiting from tariff-free trade. Ukraine continues to defend itself against Russian aggression while rebuilding key infrastructure destroyed during the war, and with tariff liberalisation remaining an important component of the UK Government’s wider package of support.
This Government remain as committed as ever to supporting Ukraine in its hour of need. Given that our agreement with Ukraine on poultry and eggs is due to expire at the end of March, the Government have agreed with Ukraine to extend tariff liberalisation on these two products for two years, from 1 April 2026 until 31 March 2028. This will continue to provide much needed support to Ukraine and its businesses. My Department will work with His Majesty’s Treasury in due course to lay the necessary statutory instrument to extend the temporary tariff liberalisation to early 2028.
We will continue to monitor trade flows and market conditions throughout the period of liberalisation and maintain regular engagement with the UK poultry and egg sectors. The agreement extends to the whole of the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies. As is the case with the current agreement, the extension is reciprocal, with Ukraine also removing tariffs on UK goods entering their country.
This work aligns with the undertakings made in the UK-Ukraine 100 year partnership agreement which was signed last year. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom will continue to do everything in its power to support Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s brutal invasion for as long as needed.
[HCWS1247]
Business and Trade
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jessica Morden
Last week I met Community union representatives representing steelworkers across Wales, including in Llanwern—I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They support the welcome movement on energy costs, and they know that the Government are working on procurement and that there will be a steel strategy, but the most urgent ask is on the EU’s steel import quotas and tariffs. Can the Minister please give us an update on those?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the issue of Llanwern; sometimes we focus on some of the other steelworks in the UK, but this is about the whole sector. I met Commissioner Šefčovič yesterday; we are very much on the case of trying to sort out precisely where we land with the EU safeguard, but we also need to ensure that the UK has a steel safeguard after the end of June. We will do everything we can to ensure that we have a strong and prosperous steel sector across the whole of the UK, including in Llanwern.
[Official Report, 11 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 480.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
… I met Commissioner Šefčovič yesterday; we are very much on the case of trying to sort out precisely where we land with the EU trade measures, but we also need to ensure that the UK has such trade measures after the end of June. This will ensure that we have a strong and prosperous steel sector across the whole of the UK, including in Llanwern.
Business and Trade
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time… That is why the Bill builds on two different Acts of Parliament: the Industrial Development Act 1982, which provides grants to industry in the UK, and the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, which enables financial support by means of investment finance.
[Official Report, 15 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 707.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time… That is why the Bill builds on two different Acts of Parliament: the Industrial Development Act 1982, which provides grants to industry in the UK, and the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, which enables financial support by means of export finance.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member is absolutely right that the vast majority of the companies we will be talking about are SMEs—88% of the companies that benefit from UK Export Finance are SMEs.
[Official Report, 15 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 708.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member is absolutely right that the vast majority of the companies we will be talking about are SMEs—88% of the companies that benefited in 2023-24 from UK Export Finance were SMEs.
Chris Bryant
Well, I hope that I can find the right hon. Gentleman’s sweet spot, as he is such a dedicated follower of fashion… It is based on loans being made at normal rates, and sometimes it manages to lever in retail finance as well, which is a particularly important part of its work.
[Official Report, 15 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 710.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
Well, I hope that I can find the right hon. Gentleman’s sweet spot, as he is such a dedicated follower of fashion… It is based on loans being made at normal rates and manages to leverage private sector finance as well, which is a particularly important part of its work.
Chris Bryant
Of course there will be massive contracts, such as the $3.5 billion expression of interest that we have allowed for the building of the new Dubai airport so that British businesses will be able to put in for some of the ensuing tenders—perhaps for hangar doors, the building of additional facilities, maintenance services or architectural designs. However, 88% of what we are talking about in respect of UK Export Finance is for SMEs.
[Official Report, 15 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 710.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
Of course there will be massive contracts, such as the $3.5 billion expression of interest that we have allowed for the building of the new Dubai airport so that British businesses will be able to put in for some of the ensuing tenders—perhaps for hangar doors, the building of additional facilities, maintenance services or architectural designs. However, 88% of what we are talking about in respect of UK Export Finance in 2023-24 was for SMEs.
Chris Bryant
On cyber, financing and JLR, I might have to correct myself in writing to the hon. Gentleman if I get what I say wrong, but as far as I am aware, I am not sure that JLR has drawn down any of the finances from UKEF that we made available… To give just one statistic, UKEF provided a £590 million loan for SeAH Wind UK, which is building an offshore wind factory in Teesside.
[Official Report, 15 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 723.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
On cyber, financing and JLR, I might have to correct myself in writing to the hon. Gentleman if I get what I say wrong, but as far as I am aware, I am not sure that JLR has drawn down any of the finances from UKEF that we made available… To give just one statistic, UKEF guaranteed a £590 million loan for SeAH Wind UK, which is building an offshore wind factory in Teesside.