United Kingdom–India Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
Chris Bryant Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of India will enter into force for the United Kingdom today.
This follows both the United Kingdom and India completing the necessary domestic legal and operational procedures to bring the agreement into force. Article 30.6 of the agreement provides for entry into force on a date agreed by the parties. The Government have worked closely with India to ensure an expedited entry into force, enabling businesses and consumers to benefit from the agreement as quickly as possible. This is the fastest that the UK has brought a new FTA from signature to entry into force.
India is currently the United Kingdom’s 11th-largest trading partner and is forecast to become the world's third-largest economy by 2031. As India continues to grow, the agreement positions UK businesses to benefit from new and expanded opportunities in one of the fastest-growing major economies in the world.
The UK-India CETA is a landmark agreement. It is the UK’s most economically significant bilateral trade deal since leaving the EU and will support economic growth across every region and nation across the United Kingdom. It will help put money back into working people’s pockets and delivers on the Government’s plan for change. In the long run, the agreement is expected to increase bilateral trade by £25.5 billion, increase UK GDP by £4.8 billion, and boost wages by £2.2 billion per year. The UK is already seeing anticipatory benefits, with total UK-India trade reaching £47.9 billion last year, an increase of 10% year on year.
From the first day of entry into force, there are significant benefits for the UK. Our exporters will benefit from tariff reductions worth around £400 million per year, rising to approximately £900 million once tariff staging is complete. Average Indian tariffs on UK goods will fall from around 15% to 3%. This includes major cuts for gin and whiskies distillers, with the tariff falling from 150% to 75% at EIF, and down to 40% by year 10; automotive companies, who will benefit from the tariff dropping from up to 110% down to 10% within a quota; and cosmetic companies, with a drop from 22% down to as low as 0%, based on the product line.
The agreement also delivers preferential and unprecedented access to India’s federal Government procurement market, guarantees market access for UK services suppliers, and makes trade quicker, cheaper and easier through improved customs procedures and digital trade provisions, which will particularly help small and medium-sized enterprises to break into the market.
The benefits of the agreement will be felt across all nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Every region is expected to see economic gains, including an estimated £190 million boost for both the west midlands and Scotland, and £210 million for the north-west of England. The agreement also supports the Government’s industrial strategy by backing high-growth sectors across the UK economy.
This agreement represents more than just an improvement in trading terms. At a time when global economic norms are under pressure, this deal demonstrates the United Kingdom’s commitment to open, rules-based trade and to building resilient, long-term partnerships with trusted partners. The UK-India CETA is India’s most ambitious trade agreement to date that they have brought into force, including India’s first ever chapters on anti-corruption, consumer protection, labour rights, the environment, gender and development, and contains the strongest environmental commitments India has agreed to in any trade agreement. It also provides a strong foundation on which the United Kingdom and India can build an even more ambitious trading partnership in the years ahead.
The Government consider this agreement to be a long-term strategic investment in the United Kingdom’s prosperity. To date, we have engaged with more than 9,000 businesses across the United Kingdom and India to help them prepare for entry into force. Going forward, the Government will focus on supporting businesses to make full use of the opportunities provided by the agreement, and on monitoring its implementation closely, including through established agreement governance structures such as the Joint Economic and Trade Committee, to identify and address any issues that may arise. It is now for businesses in India and the UK to exploit the opportunities that the agreement affords.
I would like to thank Members of both Houses for their engagement and scrutiny during the ratification of this agreement.
[HCWS262]
Business and Trade
Chris Bryant Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Baker
The EU is a key trading partner for Scotland, accounting for almost 40% of Scotland’s international exports. Can the Minister reassure my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife that while we wait for a new date for the EU summit, this Government will press ahead with plans to align with more areas of the single market, so that we can continue to remove barriers for our businesses to trade with Europe?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not least because in the most recent figures, our trade in goods with Europe has fallen by 2% in the last year, whereas our trade in services has grown by 7%.
[Official Report, 2 July 2026; Vol. 788, c. 1008.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not least because in the most recent figures, our exports in goods with the EU have fallen by 2% in the last year, whereas our exports in services have grown by 7%...
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
When I visited NDT Equipment Ltd in my constituency, the director Dan Lenton showed me the ultrasonic test calibration blocks and reference pieces that it uses and supplies to manufacturers in a wide range of sectors in the UK and abroad. This steel is not manufactured in the UK; it is imported and is high grade. I know Ministers are being flexible and talking to hon. Members. Will the Minister please consider the grade of steel that the company uses, which I believe is EN3B, and exempt it from the tariffs?
Chris Bryant
We have already laid out our steel trade measures, which are there to ensure that the UK has a steel industry. This is vital for our economic future. I want to make clear that 73% of all steel imports into the UK are not in scope of the measure, but I will, of course, look at this specific issue…
[Official Report, 2 July 2026; Vol. 788, c. 1022.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
We have already laid out our steel trade measures, which are there to ensure that the UK has a steel industry. This is vital for our economic future. I want to make clear that 74% of all steel imports by value into the UK are not in scope of the measure, but I will, of course, look at this specific issue…
Deepening the UK’s Trade Relationships
Chris Bryant Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
Trade remains central to this Government’s mission to drive sustainable economic growth and to ensure that UK firms can access the opportunities presented by a rapidly evolving global economy.
This Government’s trade strategy places international partnerships at the heart of that ambition. We are focused on strengthening the UK’s position as a base for businesses to connect with global markets, while supporting high-value jobs, boosting investment and reinforcing our economic resilience. A key aspect of this pattern of international trading relationships is our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
Today, I am announcing the launch of a public consultation to inform the next phase of the United Kingdom’s trade relationships with four global partners—Indonesia, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay—as we explore how the UK should respond to accession talks with certain CPTPP candidate countries.
Parties to the CPTPP, including the UK, established an accession working group with Uruguay in 2025, and on 26 June 2026, CPTPP parties announced the start of preparatory discussions on accession with Indonesia, the Philippines and the UAE: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-06-29/hcws154 Uruguay’s accession working group is now well under way, with meetings scheduled
The Government therefore want to hear views on the opportunities, priorities and considerations associated with deepening the UK’s trading relationships with these economies. CPTPP accession represents the most likely route to deepening trading relationships with the majority of them, but the call for input does not assume a single route and also invites views on other appropriate trade policy mechanisms, including bilateral free trade agreements where applicable and relevant.
This consultation marks an early but important stage in the process of assessing future trade opportunities. The call for input published today provides businesses, civil society, consumers and individuals across the UK with the chance to share their insights and priorities, ensuring that any future negotiations are informed by a strong evidence base and reflect the needs of the UK economy.
The Government will carefully consider all responses alongside further economic and policy analysis. This will inform decisions on the UK’s overall approach to engagement with these partners. The call for input closes on 14 September 2026 and can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/deepening-uk-trade-relationships-with-indonesia-the-philippines-the-united-arab-emirates-and-uruguay
I will keep Parliament closely informed as this work progresses. Further updates will be provided in due course, including ahead of any decision to progress to an accession working group or other negotiations.
[HCWS235]
Trade Negotiations
Chris Bryant Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Swiss Confederation (Switzerland) have concluded negotiations on an enhanced Free Trade Agreement. Building on the existing goods-focused agreement, itself based on the EU-Switzerland agreement signed in 1972, this enhanced deal modernises and deepens the trading relationship with one of our closest economic partners.
The UK is a services superpower, and this agreement is estimated to increase UK services exports to Switzerland by £5.2 billion annually in the long run. It will make it cheaper and easier for businesses and professionals to travel to and supply services in the Swiss market, providing certainty for our trading arrangements with a key European partner for years to come.
Economic growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government and international trade plays a key role in creating opportunities for businesses, supporting jobs and driving investment across the UK. This FTA builds on the agreements we have secured with the United States, the European Union, India, the Gulf Co-operation Council and the Republic of Korea, strengthening the UK’s position as an open, outward-looking trading nation.
Switzerland is the UK’s sixth-largest services export market, with bilateral services trade in 2025 amounting to over £30 billion. The agreement builds on this relationship, helping to support jobs across the UK—including the 171,400 already sustained by exports to Switzerland. Furthermore, Swiss-owned businesses employed around 150,000 people in the UK in 2024 and total bilateral trade reached £53 billion in 2025 and bilateral foreign direct investment stood at £87 billion at the end of 2024.
This is the most significant trade agreement for services concluded by the UK, as it includes the UK’s most ambitious digital chapter and most comprehensive business travel commitments in an FTA, along with high-ambition outcomes across services and investment. It helps reinforce the UK’s position as one of the world’s leading services exporters and will help unlock new opportunities in key industrial strategy sectors including finance, professional services, life sciences, creative industries and digital technologies.
The UK has also secured the most comprehensive digital chapter ever agreed by Switzerland in an FTA. With over 70% of UK-Swiss services trade delivered digitally, the agreement guarantees the free flow of data while maintaining existing privacy protections. It modernises the digital trading environment through commitments on electronic contracts, signatures and invoicing, prevents customs duties on electronic transmissions and has the strongest commitments to prohibit unjustified data localisation requirements.
The FTA delivers long-term business certainty for UK services firms, a key ask from stakeholders throughout the negotiations. The UK and Switzerland have agreed that future improvements to access in certain sectors are locked in. This provides UK firms with a more stable and predictable business environment, which will give them the confidence to plan and invest for the long term. The agreement also permanently secures the rights of UK lawyers to provide advisory services in foreign and international law in Switzerland without requiring requalification.
The agreement complements the wider framework of UK-Swiss co-operation, including the Berne financial services agreement and the UK-Swiss recognition of professional qualifications agreement.
The UK and Switzerland are global leaders in life sciences. The UK’s ambition is to become Europe’s leading life sciences economy by 2030, and the FTA will support this vision. The UK and Switzerland will commit to maintaining existing balanced intellectual property protections for pharmaceuticals. This goes beyond any prior UK or Swiss FTA. The deal will commit the UK to maintaining our existing 10-year period of regulatory data protection, consisting of at least eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of market exclusivity—sometimes known together as “8+2 years” of regulatory data protection. The FTA will also commit the UK to maintaining up to five years of protection for supplementary protection certificates, with the flexibility to increase the maximum term available. These standards support the discovery and development of new medicines. This does not change UK legislation or practice. It maintains the existing balance between supporting pharmaceutical innovation and the NHS’s access to lower-cost generic medicines.
Switzerland has announced that UK nationals will soon be able to use e-gates at Swiss borders, in line with Schengen requirements. They will be able to exit via e-gates at Zurich airport from as soon as the end of 2026. Switzerland is also working towards allowing entry via e-gates, particularly at Zurich, Geneva and Basel airports, and will set out a timetable shortly.
The enhanced FTA permanently secures the commitments contained in the temporary UK-Swiss services mobility agreement, currently due to expire at the end of 2029. This protects an estimated £700 million in UK services exports annually in the long run. British professionals will continue to be able to provide services in Switzerland for up to 90 days each year without requiring a work permit, while new provisions improve certainty for business visitors, inter-corporate transferees and graduate trainees.
We have also made it easier for UK businesses to access Swiss talent and expertise temporarily in certain specific services sectors. This is for up to three months through a bespoke, visa-free, short-term service supplier route.
Switzerland has also ensured contracts by UK service suppliers in key sectors such as legal, architecture and engineering can be delivered for several months. To encourage inward investment and support UK growth, Switzerland has agreed commitments on investor mobility for the first time in an FTA, facilitating business establishment and expansion for UK and Swiss businesses.
The opportunities from this agreement will be felt across all nations and regions of the United Kingdom. It will support services firms ranging from major financial and professional services employers in London and Leeds to specialist small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is also the first UK FTA to include specific coverage for Gibraltar from day one by ensuring that Gibraltar’s businesspersons will continue to be able to supply services in Switzerland for up to 90 days a year without a permit.
The UK and Switzerland also intend to include bilateral surcharge-free international mobile roaming arrangements. This would allow UK travellers to use mobile services in Switzerland without incurring additional roaming charges, reducing costs for consumers and businesses alike.
Small and medium-sized enterprises, start-ups and scale-ups will benefit from streamlined administrative requirements, simplified licensing and qualification procedures, digital payment options and new paperless trading arrangements. The deal also provides greater certainty by preventing a range of future restrictions on how UK businesses can operate, grow and manage investments in Switzerland, giving firms the confidence they need to navigate the market.
Finally, the agreement establishes a dedicated innovation working group, bringing together business, academia and Government to identify future opportunities and address emerging challenges. It is designed to evolve alongside new technologies, including artificial intelligence, and changing global conditions, ensuring the bilateral relationship remains future-focused. Alongside its commercial benefits, the agreement strengthens co-operation on climate change, development and gender equality, reflecting our shared commitment to a modern and inclusive partnership.
Alongside services, the agreement preserves tariff-free access across 99% of existing goods trade, ensuring continuity and long-term certainty for UK exporters.
We will now begin the process of preparing the treaty for signature and implementation, and the Department will update the House further in due course.
[HCWS223]
Science, innovation and technology Committee
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the report, and for all the hard work her Committee has put into it. I was very interested in the section about space. Does she share my pleasure in the announcement today that the SaxaVord space station is likely to have a launch of a rocket within the next three weeks?
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I think it is brilliant. SaxaVord got some investment from the UK Government.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
In addition to acknowledging the investment from the UK Government, may I ask whether my hon. Friend’s Committee agrees with the recommendation of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which I chair, that we should have a Minister for space in Government? That is because we recognise the cross-cutting nature of many of the issues that face companies that want to be involved in space, and the very many jurisdictions with which they have to negotiate. I think of maritime agencies, as well as Government Departments, local jurisdictions and planning. It would be helpful to have an indication of her view.
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kit Malthouse
Strangely enough, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is probably the first time in our political careers that we have agreed. He puts his finger on the point that I am trying to make. This dispute involves our own security. We do not have to be pro-Palestine or pro-Israel to take that view, just pro-British, which everybody in this House should be, first and foremost. That involves being pro-international law, pro-peace and pro-justice; the dispute goes to the heart of that. He put his finger on the point that I was coming to. Nobody is buying the idea that the argument is practical, Minister.
Kit Malthouse
I know, but I ask the Minister not to patronise us all by standing up at the end of the debate and pretending that this is all too complicated, which I am afraid is what his ministerial colleagues have said to us before.
We know that the argument against a ban is not a legal one; that has been proven time and again. Indeed, we have supported resolutions at the UN and used our position on the Security Council to say that it is not a legal issue. I am left with the only other option, which is that the decision must be political with a capital “P”. I am afraid that is the most appalling thing to contemplate. Either we fear consequences from other countries, such as the United States or whoever it might be, or we believe it is in our national interest to recognise that Palestinian self-determination and Palestinian lives are disposable in the face of that political decision.
Even worse, it may be that we just do not care. It may be that at the higher echelons of political command, whether it is in No. 10 or the Foreign Office, they really just do not care. They think, “If we squint a bit, make some statements from the Front Bench and have a couple of sanctions here and there, in the end, the caravan will move on, and nobody will care.” I am afraid that until Ministers realise that this is not some kind of complicated chess game across the world, but a matter of our security, our interests and our morality, we will not make any progress.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), who has raised many of these issues not just today, but on other days. It is important that we are having this debate.
I hope that hon. Members do not mind, but I will not go through each individual Member’s contribution; I will just try to answer the single voice—well, the nearly single voice—that I have heard in the Chamber today. I will try to do so in the most straightforward and up-front way possible.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) said that we should not avoid the elephant in the room—the humanitarian situation in Gaza. He is absolutely right. It is appalling, disgraceful and despicable. There are so many starving; so many thirsty for clean drinking water; so many lacking shelter and shade; so many lacking daily medicine and emergency care; so many children without teachers, without parents, without brothers and sisters or uncles and aunts, and without friends to join in the playground; so many orphans; so many homeless; so many injured; so many disabled; so many frightened and angry; so many grieving; so many dead. It does shame us all. The Israeli Government must immediately allow all humanitarian aid in so that the people of Gaza can breathe and live. The ceasefire must be abided by.
The settlements are morally wrong, legally indefensible and completely counterproductive when it comes to achieving a two-state solution—many hon. Members have said that that may be the deliberate intention of some—or for that matter, I would argue, when it comes to achieving an Israel that is safe and secure within its borders.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Chris Bryant
I will in a moment.
The violence is criminal too. We are grossly alarmed at the expansion, including the proposed E1 settlement bloc, and at the Israeli’s Government’s legislative changes to entrench Government control.
I know that not everything we have done has pleased everybody, and that we have not gone as far as many would like, but it is important to say that we have taken action. We have recognised Palestinian statehood, although I note that some people do not support that. We have stopped negotiations on a free trade agreement, although I know that some people do not support that, as we have just heard. We have strengthened the enforcement of tariff differentials between green-line Israel and the illegal settlements, but to be honest, I do not think it is as effective as we would like it to be. That is one of the significant problems both for what we are doing now and for what we might want to do in the future.
We have also suspended and blocked military and dual-use licences for equipment that could be used, or is being used, in humanitarian abuse in Gaza. We have sanctioned individuals and organisations linked to the settler movement. We have recently pushed the Charity Commission to look into UK charities that are linked to activities in the illegal settlements.
Let me be absolutely clear: of course we support Israel’s right to exist. I do not think that any hon. Member who has taken part in the debate, certainly not on the Government side of the House, is anti-Israel, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) suggested. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the activities of the Israeli Government without wanting to undermine the existence of the Israeli state. That is a really important distinction to make.
The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that many UK businesses are engaged in perfectly legitimate trade in green-line Israel, which is a powerhouse in many sectors including high tech, pharmaceuticals and so on. I pay tribute to those who have established strong economic relations between Israel and the UK, and, for that matter, between Palestine and the UK—I would like to strengthen that latter connection more. I would like to name UK companies that engage in trade in medicines, food and beverages, and financial services completely legitimately, and in a way that will be supported by everybody in this Chamber, in green-line Israel. Frankly, however, I will not do so for fear of reprisals against those companies, and that in itself tells a tale about the toxicity of this debate.
As I have said, the settlements are illegal. There is therefore a legal obligation on us as a Government not to aid or assist the occupation. The immediate corollary of that is that we need to stop UK businesses providing economic support and legitimacy to illegal settlements. Of course, we want to design measures to stop trade with settlements in a way that balances that with enabling British businesses and citizens to benefit from a strong trading relationship with Israel and with Palestine. That is one of the tricks we have to pull off.
There are four key things that we could do and are seriously considering. First, we could ban imports to the UK of goods from the illegal settlements. I think all UK consumers would want us to do this effectively, and lots of supermarkets and other chains have been looking to do it in their own way. The challenge is—and this is not an excuse, to respond to the question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse); it is just a fact—that there is no properly verifiable means of determining the real source. [Interruption.] No, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make the argument, he can criticise me afterwards if he wants to. This situation is very different from Ukraine, because in Ukraine there is a verifiable process to determine whether something is from occupied Crimea or from Ukraine. That is a significant difference. This is not an insurmountable difficulty, but it is a challenge.
Andy McDonald
If that is a problem and we want to implement the ban, the issue of distinguishing the goods is Israel’s problem; it should not be ours. We should not be held over a barrel by being told that distinguishing goods is a problem for us. It is Israel’s problem to distinguish which goods to prevent, and we should ban those goods in totality.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a perfectly legitimate point, but the danger is that, if we end up banning all trade with Israel, we fall foul of the other problems I have mentioned.
Chris Bryant
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will make a little bit more progress, and then I will give way.
The second thing we could do and are seriously considering is banning exports of UK goods to the illegal settlements. Members have talked, for instance, of banning the sale of UK machinery. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, referred to one particular company. Here, too, the challenge is that goods move in and out very freely between the illegal settlements and green-line Israel, and that poses a challenge for us. It is not insurmountable, but it is a challenge.
Andy Slaughter
I really do appreciate the steps the Government have taken. I particularly appreciate the recognition of the state of Palestine, because the embassy is in my constituency, and I was very proud to be there to see the flag raised. I want the Minister to be part of the almost total consensus here today, but that does mean being unambiguous. The problem with saying, “There are these problems,” or, “We can advise and encourage companies, but we cannot force them,” is that it is saying it is a bit legal or a bit illegal. We want a decisive view on this: we want settlement goods to be banned.
Chris Bryant
I think my hon. Friend must have misheard, or maybe I misspoke in some way, because I am saying very clearly that there are four things we could do and are seriously considering doing. The important thing is that, where there are challenges, we need to overcome them. It is not that they become an excuse for inaction.
Chris Bryant
I will just go through the third and fourth points, because they are important.
The third thing we could do and are seriously considering is banning exports of UK services to the illegal settlements. To my mind, it must be completely wrong for a UK business to enable the construction of a block of flats or a road, for instance, in the settlements, by providing finance, insurance, architectural services, logistical support or, as has been referred to in the debate, selling properties in the illegal settlements. All of that is a perfectly legitimate area where we should consider banning exports of UK services to the settlements. Likewise, the fourth area we are considering taking action on is banning imports to the UK of services from the settlements.
Chris Bryant
Just one more moment, and I then I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) would like to intervene first.
Members are absolutely right that other countries are either considering or are in the process of introducing a variety of different bans. As the Middle East Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has said, we have had conversations with some of them. Some are expressing concerns about whether what they are going to do will actually be effective. Sometimes I am all for declaratory legislation, but I am much more in favour of doing things that actually take effect. That is one of the key considerations for us.
Let me be absolutely clear: I do not think that any of the legal or logistical problems is insurmountable. We are actively considering what a trade ban that directly targets illegal settlements would look like.
Chris Murray
What does “actively considering” mean? Is there anything active about it? Can the Minister refer to meetings, instructions or deadlines that would manifest as active consideration?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman asks, from a sedentary position, by when? I think my timeline may be rather limited in this post, but as Tagore said:
“The one who plants trees, knowing that he will never sit in their shade, has at least started to understand the meaning of life.”
I have been trying to progress some of this work. We have not got to a place where we are able to announce anything yet, but that is why I am saying we are actively considering it.
Chris Bryant
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I do want to leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.
I just have a couple more points to make. Any measures must be enforceable, effective and not have unintended consequences on our legitimate trade, for instance in medicines, with green-line Israel. The worst of all possible outcomes would be measures that are morally declaratory but ineffective or ineffectual, and that are not capable of being implemented.
There are several routes we could go down. Members have mentioned the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. There was a set of suggestions, not all that different from some of the ideas that have come up to us already, from the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. That is an option available to us, but there are other routes we might want to explore.
I really wish that I were able to say more today, but it really is not words that are needed. I fully understand and have heard very clearly, as have the whole of the Government, that it is action that is needed. I am tempted to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) because he is very keen, but he will have to be very quick.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend, while he is still in post. Very briefly, he will be aware of the mockery that is the situation with dual-use goods between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Surely we can have some sort of ban on the products we are supplying that are essentially enabling civilisational erasure in Palestine?
Chris Bryant
I will write to my hon. Friend in answer to that point, as I am very keen to let my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central speak.
As I said, it is not words that are needed on this issue, but actions. I very much hope those might be imminent.
Business and Trade
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Tata Steel’s Steelpark in Wednesfield and manufacturers across Wolverhampton North East and the Black Country rely on resilient supply chains for steel. Will the Minister set out how today’s statement on increased quotas and steel under contract before 14 March will continue to back British-made steel production while giving downstream manufacturers the competitive certainty and confidence that they need?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right to defend her constituents’ interests. We have tried to meet the precise concerns that she raises. I would be happy to go through with her on Monday afternoon each of the different categories of steel that might be applicable to her area. Some people have given the impression that we are cutting all categories of steel and that nobody will be able to bring in categories of steel without being tariffed. Actually, the quotas in most areas allow for historical levels of imports, and in others areas where we produce in the UK we are trying to persuade people to buy and use British steel.
[Official Report, 25 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 537.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right to defend her constituents’ interests. We have tried to meet the precise concerns that she raises. I would be happy to go through with her on Monday afternoon each of the different categories of steel that might be applicable to her area. Some people have given the impression that we are cutting all categories of steel and that nobody will be able to bring in categories of steel without being tariffed. Actually, the quotas in several important categories allow for historical levels of imports, and in others areas where we produce in the UK we are trying to persuade people to buy and use British steel.
Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I have today laid before the House 13 additional documents within the scope of the 24 February 2026 Humble Address seeking all papers relating to the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment and the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in 2001.
These documents confirm the arrangements for the appointment set out in the documents provided on 21 May 2026 but also provide some further detail, including confirmation that the British Trade International board was informed and Ministers were briefed on his preparation for the role, and details of his induction programme.
The 13 documents include:
extracts from BTI board papers;
further documents about the role, job title, and an update note for the responsible Minister.
plans for his induction programme and transition to the new role; and
press releases and media handling discussion.
The Government have now concluded all reasonable searches for material requested by Parliament. The focus of our work is now on supporting Thames Valley police with their investigation into possible misconduct in public office. If, in the course of this or other work, the Government find additional documents in scope of the Humble Address, these will be provided to Parliament in line with the established process.
I am conscious that the Business and Trade Committee is considering inquiring into the Government’s management of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor between 2001 and 2011. I am due to discuss with the Committee how we can best support it while avoiding prejudicing the police investigation.
[HCWS207]
Enhanced Free Trade Agreement: Turkey
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The fifth round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement with Turkey took place in Ankara between 15 and 23 June 2026.
Economic growth is our first mission in Government, and free trade agreements have an important role to play in achieving it. A stronger trade relationship with Turkey can support jobs and prosperity in the UK, with trade between the two totalling £28.4 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q4 2025—an increase of 4.3% from the previous year.
To support this round of negotiations, I travelled to Turkey to meet with the Minister of Trade, Professor Dr Ömer Bolat, and Deputy Minister of Trade, Mustafa Tuzcu.
Negotiations were constructive, with positive progress being made in a number of areas.
Trade in services
Productive discussions were held across a range of technical areas, including digital trade, domestic regulation and telecommunications. The investment session saw valuable exchanges, reflecting the shared ambition and good will between both sides. Particularly strong progress was made in legal services, among other areas. Across sessions, negotiators engaged in detailed text-based discussions, testing areas of alignment, exploring respective levels of ambition, and identifying outstanding issues. Both sides continued to engage productively, building on progress made in previous rounds.
Trade in goods
Negotiations covered a range of market access and regulatory issues, including goods market access and sanitary and phytosanitary measures, along with others. Discussions focused on reviewing respective proposals, testing areas of alignment, and identifying remaining gaps, while maintaining and upholding the UK’s high standards. Both sides reached agreement on modalities for market access offers. These sessions were positive and productive with both sides seeking a high ambition outcome to support businesses and drive progress forward.
Additional areas
Wider cross-cutting discussions covered intellectual property, Government procurement, trade remedies, environment, state-owned enterprises, among others, with intellectual property discussions in particular picking up pace—signalling a growing shared focus on this area. Key themes included strengthening protection and enforcement of intellectual property, as well as environmental co-operation and sustainability.
Concluded chapters
After five rounds of negotiations negotiating, teams have closed 11 chapters, along with agreement on multiple annexes and associated issues. They have made substantial progress towards an agreement that will strengthen bilateral trade and create the enabling environment that can increase UK exports to Turkey, supporting jobs across UK nations and regions.
The UK will only ever sign a trade agreement that aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors.
The sixth round of negotiations is expected to take place in the autumn. Ministers will update Parliament on the progress of discussions with Turkey as negotiations continue.
[HCWS198]
Summer Jobs
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I will not be moving the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
I do not know how you felt when you got up this morning, Mr Speaker, and you saw the Order Paper. I saw that there was a debate on summer jobs and I thought, “That’s going to be nice and summery and bright and optimistic—the sun is shinin’ in the sky, there ain’t a cloud in sight.” But then along comes Mr Night with all his doom and gloom and rheum in his eye—
Chris Bryant
A depressing version of reality.
I know that the Tories do not support proportional representation, but none the less we have had the single transferable speech delivered by the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) from the Conservative Front Bench. To quote Sam Fender and Olivia Dean, “All my memories of” the Tory Front Bench “ring like tinnitus”—only I do not mean that in a good way as it is in the song.
Let us look at the actual facts. On GDP, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne has been predicting doom for months, but the UK economy grew by a robust 0.6% in the first quarter of 2026, something the Conservatives would have died for during their 14 years in Government. On inflation, he has been making dire predictions for months, but the consumer prices index stayed steadily at 2.8% in May, defying expectations. On wages, average regular pay, excluding bonuses, increased by 3.4% year on year up to April 2026, ahead of inflation. On productivity, he kept on saying, “Oh woe is me”, here, there and everywhere, on every broadcast outlet in the land, but UK productivity increased by 0.9% in the first quarter of 2026. On employment, he said we are doomed—
“We are doomed, Captain Mainwaring!”—
but in the three months to April 2026, UK unemployment fell slightly to 4.9%, meaning we are outperforming other major economies, including Canada and the European Union average, and we have a record number of people in employment at 34.4 million people.
We are absolutely not complacent about any of this. Some of the global headwinds remain challenging. The impacts of the war in Iran, which the Conservatives wanted us to go into at full scale, have yet to be fully felt, but we are making progress.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Nowhere is the summer job more important for young people finding work than on the Isle of Wight, but employers are telling me that it is increasingly hard to employ young people because of the tax and the red tape that this Government have put on them, so it is no wonder that youth unemployment is up. I have an idea for the Minister: why does he not reform welfare and reverse the decisions made by his Government so that young people can find a job?
Chris Bryant
I am not sure that there is “nowhere” in the country where that is more important than the Isle of Wight—every single constituency in the land faces challenges around getting young people into work. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), raised a completely different set of issues from those raised by the hon. Gentleman, but of course we have to reform welfare. I do not think a single Member of the House does not believe that we have to reform welfare. We have to ensure welfare works for people and enables people to get into jobs.
There is one phrase that the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne used that I completely agree with, although I would just change one word. He said that as a Conservative, he believed that work is the route out of poverty and into prosperity, and as a socialist and a Labour party politician, I agree that work is the route out of poverty, to self-fulfilment, to better mental health and to increased social cohesion across the whole country, so of course it is an absolute priority for any Labour Government to want to get as many young people into profitable work as possible.
Let me deal with the three main issues that have been raised in the debate: first, young people and their summer jobs; secondly, support for businesses; and thirdly, tourism. I see the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), is in his place, so he may want to raise some of the issues around tourism later. I think he has been out in the sun a bit too much—I am a bit worried about him. Skin cancer is a major problem in the country—[Interruption.]
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Why is the Minister talking about people’s skin?
Mr Speaker
Order. The shadow Deputy Chief Whip should know better—I expect him to set examples, not break them.
Chris Bryant
I did not know the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) is the shadow Deputy Chief Whip, but there we are. If the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham is upset I am terribly sorry, but I think he was taking my words in the way that I intended them.
I am sure that we can all remember our first summer job. Mine was in a newsagent/sweet shop. Others might have been behind a bar, which is very common, or working in a hotel. Wimbledon takes on 280 14 to 17-year-olds as ball boys and girls every year, plus many more young people in its bars and hospitality venues. The Commonwealth games in Glasgow, which should bring £150 million of extra investment into the city, will take on more than 3,000 volunteers and hundreds of temporary staff. The Edinburgh festivals will take on even more young people working across all the different events.
In tourism hotspots across the country, from Margate to Harrogate to Whip-Ma-Whop-Ma-Gate in York, in Bath, Stratford-upon-Avon, the Lake district, the Peak district and on the Jurassic coast, youngsters will be earning a wage for the very first time. That is a really important part of their social and personal development. We all know how important such jobs are to the whole economy. As several hon. Members have said already, getting their first experience of work teaches young people about the need to turn up on time, to look somebody in the face and engage with them, and to understand the rigours of work and stay until the end of the day.
The tourism industry meets domestic and international demand. We are still ambitious: we want to get to 50 million international visitors to the UK by 2030. Hospitality offers young people the chance to go from having no qualifications or experience to skilled staff member faster than any other sector in the UK, which is why it is so important.
Wendy Morton
If the situation is so rosy, will the Minister explain why youth unemployment among 16 to 17-year-olds is currently running at a staggering 30%—up from 24.7%?
Chris Bryant
I never said that the situation was all rosy; I said earlier that I am completely not complacent about the situation. I know the problems facing young people going into work that have been endemic in our economy for the last 15 to 20 years. A Conservative Member—I am sorry that I cannot remember who—asked earlier, “Isn’t university a fraud on young people?” Of course, it is really important to strike a balance between getting the experience to get into work rather than necessarily taking on an academic career. We have been keen to change that mix since we came into government.
I do not suppose that there is a single Labour Member who does not worry about the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training—NEETs, as people have referred to them already. Alan Milburn’s report is a real wake-up call for us all. We are fully backing the review and will of course act on its recommendations when they finally appear. We want to make sure they are based on evidence, which is precisely what Alan Milburn is pursuing.
Chris Vince
I apologise to the whole House that in my previous intervention, I did not mention my constituency of Harlow. I will put the record straight now and talk about the incredible work that Harlow college is doing to support young people who are not in education, employment or training. As part of the ongoing Milburn review, will the Minister look at some of the good case studies, like Harlow college, to help benefit the Government’s thinking?
Chris Bryant
Mr Speaker, did you know that he is the Member for Harlow? That had completely passed us by completely, hadn’t it? My hon. Friend makes a good point and I am sure someone will send him a letter thanking him for it. I am sure lots of us have similar examples in our constituencies.
Chris Bryant
Maybe the Father of the House is about to give us another instance of an institution in his constituency.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am just wondering if the Minister is looking forward to a new summer job at the end of July. Can he give us any confidence that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has any new ideas to get young people into work? If he does, I am not aware of them yet.
Chris Bryant
Actually, quite a few mayors around the country, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), have advanced a lot of ideas in their areas that have precisely done that. It is important that we do not simply adopt a one-size-fits-all approach for the whole country. The kind of issues in my patch will be very different from those in the Father of the House’s patch, and we need to be able to match our ideas to the areas. As for the longest reshuffle in history, I think most of us are bored with it already.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Minister is talking up the economic performance of the United Kingdom since his party took over in 2024. He is labouring the point about the first quarter of this year, but I detect that he is less confident about the second quarter—we will see what that brings. Youth unemployment stood at 626,000 last year, so with this fabulous economy, why has it gone up by 109,000? Why are there 109,000 more 16 to 24-year-olds out of work under this Government now than there were this time last year?
Chris Bryant
I want to be absolutely clear. I am not trying to suggest that everything is perfect in the nation and that we are in a version of nirvana; I am not saying that at all. I have friends and relatives who work in the hospitality industry, and I know that these last few years—not just the last two, but the last 15—have been really tough for hospitality. I think we lost something like 6,800 pubs from 2010 to 2024, and we have been losing more since then.
Chris Bryant
I am still trying to answer the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me.
We have faced significant headwinds this year. We are keen to pursue the work that Alan Milburn has done, and, if I am allowed, I will come to some of the ways in which we are trying to address the specific problem we have.
John Glen
I recognise that the Minister wants to come to what the Government are going to do, but does he not accept that the decisions already made in the last two years—with respect to the price of employment and the national living wage, the cost of employment with regard to legislation, and business rates—have depressed the appetite of many small businesses to employ more people? Regardless of the strategic changes around the Milburn review, which I accept need to be evidence based, those decisions have had a chilling effect on the capacity of the economy to employ young people.
Chris Bryant
Let me say two things. On the national living wage, it must surely be wrong that somebody who works 40 hours a week cannot afford to pay their bills at the end of the week. If they have been a diligent worker, played by the rules and done everything properly, but they still cannot afford to put food on the table for themselves and their children, pay the electricity bill and all the rest of it, that must surely be wrong. That is why we introduced the whole idea of a minimum wage in the first place, and then the national living wage.
This issue applies only to young people older than school age—those aged 18 and above. I know that there are some people who have an impression that all those young people are living at home and do not need to earn in the same way as others, but that is simply not true for lots of 19, 20 and 21-year-olds in my constituency. They are earning their living, and they need to pay the bills, just like anybody else. There is a difficult balance to be struck there.
Similarly, I would argue, there is a balancing act around national insurance contributions. As the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) will know, we have tried to ensure that the sectors of the economy that are smaller and have less ability to absorb the additional costs do not have to meet them. I think something like 50% of businesses do not have to pay any more at all—I will correct the record if I have got that number wrong. In the end, I do not hear people frequently calling for us to slash expenditure on defence, education, the health service and so on. I sometimes want to say to hon. Members that it is all very well to denounce the national insurance contributions increase, but they would have to find the money from other budgets. It is all very well to say, “Let’s cut it from welfare,” but a lot of welfare projects are designed to make sure that people have an opportunity to put food on the table and pay the bills.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Chris Bryant
I am keen to move on, but I am an enormous fan of the right hon. Member, so I will give way to him.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is always great to have the Minister at the Dispatch Box; we always have a lot of fun. I have had to juggle this issue myself, so I want to ask him a very important question: does he honestly think that making the starting rate for national insurance payments almost half the previous rate has no effect on part-time employment? Does doing so not discourage those who would like to give people starter jobs? It makes that much more difficult; surely that is the reality.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman makes a decent point. A balance has to be struck on all these things and, in the end, we have to make the sums add up when it comes to the Budget. Those are the difficult decisions that we had to make back in November 2024. The other issue we faced was that no provision had been made for support for business rates beyond April 2025 prior to the Budget in November 2024, so when we introduced measures in that regard, they had to be paid for too.
I heard what the shadow Minister has just said about abolishing business rates, but I am afraid that this is Trussonomics. It sounds great—“Let’s abolish all tax! Why not?”—but you actually have to pay for that and prove that you have the wherewithal to do so. I will crack on if I may, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Apologies, Mr Speaker; I did not mean to demote you there.
We are already taking action by putting an additional £1 billion into programmes such as the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy, which are supporting almost 1 million young people and creating up to 500,000 opportunities for them to earn and learn. We have also been offering new incentives of £2,000 for those hiring foundation apprentices aged 16 to 21. That comes on top of a complete national insurance contributions exemption for employees under the age of 21 and apprentices under the age of 25, which I think meets some Members’ arguments.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that I am going to crack on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. He will have an opportunity to—
Dave Doogan
It is always nice to be the Minister’s first refusal. Have I put him off his stride?
Chris Bryant
No, no—but making a snide remark has not recommended the hon. Gentleman to me any further, I have to say.
A seasonal job may be the first route out of NEETdom. That is why we built flexibility into the Employment Rights Act 2025 to address issues of seasonal demand. Not all seasonal work is done on a zero hours or similar basis, but, where it is, there are provisions in the legislation to allow those guaranteed hours to be part of a fixed or limited-term contract where appropriate.
Let me be clear that the right to guaranteed hours does not force companies to make seasonal workers permanent; it gives workers the right to choose certainty and stability in their contracts where they want it, which will help them to budget and plan their lives. That is the right thing to do. It ensures that workers are fairly treated and affords employers the flexibilities that they need, while giving around 2.7 million workers a pay rise thanks to increases in the national living wage and the national minimum wage. I should add that the Department is running a consultation on some of the finer details of our zero-hours policies before they come into effect, and I encourage businesses to share their views with us so that these reforms work in practice, not just on paper.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way before he finishes?
Chris Bryant
Oh, I have hours yet—and I still have to give way to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens—but of course I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Damian Hinds
The Minister said that he would not move the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I do not think that is unheard of, but I am curious to understand why, having put down such an amendment, the Government would not move it. There are three main things here, and the Minister has talked about two of them: the Employment Rights Act and apprenticeships. The third main thing seems to be about planned changes for business rates. In not moving the amendment, is the Minister saying that the Government do not stick by what they said previously about upcoming changes to business rates on pubs?
Chris Bryant
Touché, Mr Speaker! [Interruption.] Oh, Madam Deputy Speaker is taking the Chair. Well, I saw you off, Mr Speaker.
Chris Bryant
It has all got very unconventional.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is misinterpreting what is occurring. If he wants to reason with this matter, I am afraid he needs to talk to the Whips, who are in charge of decisions about whether we move things and vote.
I said that I would address the issue of support for businesses, and that is precisely what our “Backing your Business” plan is all about. We are rolling out one of the most significant pieces of legislation in more than 25 years to tackle late payments: the Commercial Payments Bill. We are expanding access to finance through the British Business Bank to give more small firms the confidence to grow and take on more staff, with guidance and support available from our business growth service every step of the way.
We are bringing in new hospitality zones with reduced red tape and licensing costs. These new zones will make it easier for businesses to move into disused spaces and employ more people. In addition to all that, we are cutting this year’s business rates bills for pubs and live music venues by 15% following a two-year freeze, and we are encouraging large concert venues to introduce a £1 levy on a voluntary basis to go towards supporting live music venues. It is great that Harry Styles, Olivia Dean and others are encouraging people to do that for their tickets, but it is not universal yet. It could be a significant advantage for live music venues, so I encourage all operators to do this.
Chris Bryant
Yes, and I would be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) again if he wants.
Sarah Bool
On the issue of support for businesses, Brackley Antique Cellar is a unique business that has 200 dealers, but business rates are really affecting it. Antique spaces often take on unique properties, and business rates are really hurting them. Will the Minister reconsider the business rates for businesses such as Brackley Antique Cellar?
Chris Bryant
I have heard about that issue in relation to some other antiques businesses that are basically lots of stalls or small shops inside a much larger, older building. The hon. Lady makes a decent point, and it is one of the things we will be considering as we look at the future of business rates.
We have also introduced permanently low tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000. This gives long-term certainty and support to the high street, and stands in marked contrast to the previous forms of relief, which created a yearly cliff edge that had been due to end entirely in April 2025. At the same time, we are increasing the hospitality support fund to £10 million, helping more businesses in this sector to grow and create more summer jobs. As hon. Members know, we have extended world cup opening hours and cut alcohol duty on draft pints. Despite being a Welshman, I very much hope that we have to do that rather more frequently over the next two weeks.
Chris Bryant
I still have an intervention to take from the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens from the SNP if he wants to have another go, but if not, I will give way to the right hon. Lady.
Wendy Morton
Does the Minister not accept that the schemes and programmes to do with the world cup—let us hope England stay in for as long as possible to help those businesses—are merely small sticking plasters? We need longer-term solutions for these industries that are much more sustainable.
Chris Bryant
Yes, I do not think England’s football prospects over the next few weeks are going to be the sole answer to the problem. That is why I have laid out a series of different areas in which we are already taking action, which I think will provide precisely the kind of long-term answers the sector needs. The Government have also protected the smallest businesses from the impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. That is really important, and is very rarely mentioned in Conservative speeches.
I said that I would talk about tourism. I know that the Conservative party dislikes the idea of the tourism levy, and I have heard businesses complain about it as well—hotels in particular, but other parts of the sector too. I also worry that businesses are already facing a heavy tax burden, and I do not particularly want to increase it, but let us not exaggerate. First, all we are considering doing is allowing mayors to introduce a local levy. Some areas have already done so on a voluntary basis, and have done so very successfully. It seems extraordinary to forbid them from doing so, especially if they ensure that all the money raised goes into projects that support the tourism and hospitality sector. In certain instances where mayors want to introduce such a levy, it could be a real opportunity to drive forward economic opportunity in that sector.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The King’s Speech mentioned that mayors might have that power, but that foundation strategic authorities might also have it. Obviously, the approach has not been decided yet, but is that still the case?
Chris Bryant
Yes. I am very glad that my hon. Friend picked me up on that—that is a very good point.
I want to make another point about the levy, which is that some people seem to be suggesting that all of this is going to start in a couple of weeks’ time. Far from it; this levy is far from imminent. We are consulting on it, and that process will take some time—I doubt we will have anything in place in the next 12 months. I very much encourage people to take part in the consultation so that we can decide how to move forward. Of course, any mayor or strategic authority will want to consider all the issues in the round and whether a net benefit can be gained from introducing such a levy, notwithstanding the additional pressures that there might be on costs in the tourism and hospitality sector.
Tim Farron
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and for raising the issue of the tourism levy. We will have a mayor in Cumbria next May, and one of the considerations they will have is the fact that we have 20 million visitors every year to a county of 600,000 people. Those visitors use facilities in our communities—police, hospitals and many council facilities, not least the roads. They are very welcome to use those facilities, but not a penny is contributed towards them. I think people will instinctively be against a tourism tax, but the Government’s choice to cut the local authority’s funding by 31% is going to put the mayor—of whatever political colour—in a position where they feel they have no alternative but to introduce it. Would it not be better if mayors were able to make decisions and have our services funded properly by taking into account the visitors in the first place?
Chris Bryant
One thing on which I think the hon. Gentleman and I agree is that this is a very over-centralised state. We make far too many decisions on a national basis, rather than allowing local people to make more decisions that directly affect their businesses and their local economy. The economy in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency might be very different from mine or that of any other Member.
In relation to tourism in particular, I am conscious that some of the country’s biggest tourist attractions are in London—the British Museum and the Natural History Museum, for instance, get roughly 6 million visitors each—and a few other cities, including Bath, Stratford, Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh, do phenomenally well. Those cities might want to take a different attitude to that of other parts of the country, and I think that is the right way for us to move forward. There will be pressure from people who say, “Hang on, all our local museums are free to enter. Why are local taxpayers having to pay for that, rather than tourists when they arrive?” Those are the issues that mayors and strategic authorities will have to bear in mind, and it will sometimes be a borderline decision, but I think it is right that we give people the power and leave them to decide whether to exercise it.
There is one final policy area that I want to touch on, because it is mentioned in the Opposition’s motion, and that is red tape. There is an irony about this—much of the red tape we are dealing with is in place because the previous Government introduced it. That is why we have set ourselves a very clear target of cutting the administrative burden on businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament, and we are absolutely determined to do so. I fully accept the argument that there is far too much red tape; if we make it too difficult for businesses to employ people, that is an own goal for Britain. We are making progress—we have already announced a series of significant reforms that will mean no more mandatory strategic reports for medium-sized firms, and no more directors’ reports for businesses of any size. That is going to save businesses some £230 million a year, but obviously we need to go further, and the Business Secretary is going to be making further announcements.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
My very first experience of employment was waiting at a van to try to get a day’s work, cash in hand, at the berries, which was what people usually did when they were aged 13 or 14 and looked a wee bit older. I hope the Minister is not proposing a return to those days, because I kind of got the impression from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), that that was the exact type of employment he was looking to return to.
Chris Bryant
To be fair to the shadow Minister, I do not think he intends to send children up the chimneys any more. That was his policy a few years ago, or maybe his predecessor’s policy, but it is not his policy any more. It is not quite “Planet Earth that the Opposition are on, to quote Duran Duran, but they are close to it.
The Opposition motion talks a lot about regret. It regrets the Employment Rights Act 2025, the national insurance contributions, and so on. I am afraid that it tempts me to give my notorious Édith Piaf impersonation:
“Non, rien de rien…Je me fous du passé”.
What is missing from these regrets of the Opposition? They have no regrets about helping draft the kami-Kwasi Budget that led to the fastest ever increase in mortgage rates, sending millions of families into unaffordable debt; no regrets about the biggest fall in living standards for two centuries; no regrets about slashing our public services, including the NHS, local government and our armed forces; no regrets about 14 years of anaemic economic growth. No regrets? No, I have regrets. I regret that the Conservatives ever got into power. I regret that they have become Mrs Thatcher’s moaning Minnies. I regret that they left us with a nation divided against itself, but I do not regret the Employment Rights Act—I am proud of it.
To be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have not moved the amendment, and I am not moving it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I am grateful to the official Opposition for giving us all an opportunity to reminisce about our own summer jobs. Probably many more years ago than I would care to admit, I was lucky enough to work both as a cleaner and at my local Co-op to help pay my way through the summer. Both those jobs were important to me; they not only stopped my mum murdering me for being around the house too much, but provided that crucial introduction to the world of work, and an opportunity to start to establish some of the disciplines and awarenesses of life that have served me, I should like to think, reasonably well over my 36 years on this planet—
Alistair Strathern
I am grateful for the protestations from the Front Bench.
Those jobs were also crucial in starting to form my politics. In both settings, I was incredibly lucky to work with some fantastic colleagues. Not only did my clumsiness—from spilled buckets to broken bottles in the aisles—mean that I often relied on their generosity and patience with my ineptitude, but they gave me a window into lives that were very different from mine to date. There were similarities between those two jobs. Both sets of people worked in industries in which the minimum wage had been crucial to driving up their security and sense of prosperity. They were grateful for that, and as a result there was a great deal of support for the Labour Government at the time.
However, there was one crucial difference. At the Co-op, those with whom I worked had regular contracts, secure work and good terms. They were supported by a recognised trade union, and felt a comfort and security in their jobs that was denied to many of those with whom I worked cleaning local schools. There, the practical realities of limited terms and conditions, and insecure work with non-guaranteed hours, were not artefacts of a contract or remote bureaucracy; they were tangible insecurities that hung over people’s day-to-day lives, and undermined their sense of security and ability to plan with confidence for the future that they wanted to provide for their family. That is why, many years down the line, I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are delivering a record expansion of workplace rights through the Employment Rights Act 2025, and why the fundamental vision of protecting workers and ensuring a minimum social contract for those working hard for their families and doing right by their communities will always be foundational to my politics.
We come here not to embrace the contradictions and tensions that inhibit social change and progress, but to be creative enough and bold enough to lead the country, and to lead the way to a better economic settlement for the working families whom we are here to serve. That is why the minimum wage has been so transformational for our country, and why we have weekends now. I am very confident that in time, the Employment Rights Act will prove to be a big step forward for so many of the working people I am proud to represent. That does not mean that every aspect will always be perfect. Consultations with businesses and employers will be foundational in ensuring that we get the nuances right, when we look at how things play out in different employment settings, but the fundamental principle is this: my constituents and the cleaners I worked with deserve more confidence and security in their employment. That is exactly why I feel completely at home on the Government Benches, with my Labour colleagues.
The Conservatives’ motion raises important issues. It is absolutely right to say that, over many years, we have not done enough collectively to bear down on some of the barriers to young people getting employment. We are doing a lot of work on that, but there is a lot more that we need to do. I am really glad that this Government are waking up to the need to do far more on vocational skills and apprenticeships. They are thinking about how we can reform qualifications to ensure greater alignment with our industrial strategy, and the growth opportunities that will come from industrial changes, but they are also breaking down practical barriers to accessing opportunities for young people in my communities and right across the country. The Government are introducing foundational apprenticeships, and are making sure that they are in reach of the hardest-to-reach young people—those who are desperately in need of the steps into work that apprenticeships can provide. They are reforming levies to make it cheaper for employers to take on apprentices and give them the training that they desperately deserve.
Mr Bedford
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. I think the pace at which this was brought in has had a massive impact on businesses, particularly smaller businesses, and their ability to adapt to a changing labour market.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to continue my conversation with the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). My other concern is how it can possibly be right that somebody is employed for and works 40 hours a week, but their pay is not enough to cover the bills or to avoid being subsidised by the state afterwards. That is one key question we have to answer.
Mr Bedford
Too many people are growing up believing that hard work is no longer rewarded and aspiration is no longer valued. That is not the message we should be sending to the next generation. We owe our young people better than that.
For many of us in this House, a summer job was how we first learned what work is. In my case, it was stacking shelves in a corner shop, then working behind a counter at a local café and then in a greengrocer. Each one of those jobs taught me the same lesson—the value of money and the pride that comes from earning it oneself. That is why I support the action the Opposition are taking to save the summer job.
We would cut business rates for the businesses that create those first-rung jobs, not have another round of tinkering with multipliers and reliefs. We would scrap the archaic restrictions that stop young people choosing when they work, such as the outdated limits on Sunday working and the rules that bar them from working after 9 pm. A young person helping in a restaurant or a hotel is not being exploited; they are gaining experience, earning money and developing skills that employers value. We would end the culture of excessive bureaucracy that greets any employer offering a teenager their first opportunity, because every unnecessary form is yet another reason to say no. We would repeal the most damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act and give employers the confidence to hire again. We would give SMEs proper, simple access to a growth and skills levy, so that a seasonal job can become an apprenticeship instead of simply ending in September.
I have heard what the Minister and hon. Members have said, but it is important that we give young people the dignity of a job, and a Government who are serious about work do not legislate away the very jobs our young people need. A summer job is about not just a payslip, but confidence, responsibility and resilience. This Government’s actions have limited those opportunities, so I urge the House to support our motion, and I urge Ministers to give our young people back their first chance of building a successful career.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is right, of course. I do not think anybody in the House of Commons would argue that there should be no employment or workplace regulation at all. [Interruption.] Well—actually, I do not think anybody does, genuinely. I certainly do not. I welcome very many of the rights that have come over the years. However, it would be totally ignorant to suggest that new inflexibilities and rigidities can be brought into the labour market without their having an effect on unemployment. Whenever there is an effect on unemployment, there is always a magnified effect on youth unemployment, and we want to ensure that young people can get into and stay in jobs.
I want to speak briefly about the costs of employment. This is much harder to talk about, because whenever anybody talks about the realities of equalising pay between younger people and slightly older adults—not that people do so very often—they can be vilified easily for being heartless, uncaring, discriminatory—you name it. However, sometimes being in this place as a politician and a representative and having the best interests of our constituents at heart means having to say difficult things. This difficult thing is something that I think most people here know—including, actually, most Labour MPs—but it is difficult to say.
Let me take a little bit of the heat and politics out of it by talking about a hypothetical situation. This is not the situation that we actually have today, because we have differential national insurance contributions by age. Imagine a situation where an employer has a job vacancy and they have two applicants who in all other respects are the same, but one is 30 years old and one is 18. Who is the employer going to employ at exactly the same wage, with all other things being equal? They are, of course, going to employ the person with experience—the person with both work experience and life experience, who has just been doing it a little longer, working with teams, dealing with colleagues and dealing with customers.
I use that hypothetical situation just to establish the principle that wages do have an effect, and that is why the Low Pay Commission—[Interruption.] The Minister can screw up his face again if he wishes.
Damian Hinds
Well, I will help him with that. That principle is why, back in 1999—under a Labour Government, as he will recall—when the original minimum wage came in, the Low Pay Commission specified that there should be a different rate for young people. That was for two reasons. The first reason was because of the work experience effect: there is a difference in how employers view people with a few years’ work experience and others without that experience, and if those rates were exactly the same, youth unemployment would inevitably rise. The second reason was to recognise that very many of those younger workers are in some form of education or training at the same time. We all want people to be properly rewarded for the work they do. The best thing is to be well rewarded in a job, but the worst thing of all is not to have a hope of getting into a job that is well rewarded.
We have talked a bit about the national living wage. Of course, we all want the national living wage to keep going up. That is why we brought it in, by the way, in 2015, with the explicit intention that it would keep rising until it was further up the income distribution. However, we do have to acknowledge the reality. As I say, I think that most people present know that there is a difference by age and that it is there for a reason.