UK-India Free Trade Agreement
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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(1 week, 1 day 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 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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?
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(3 weeks 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(3 weeks, 1 day 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 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 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.
Jane Austen
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks 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
Luke Murphy
I am sure that Austen would agree and, as we do not have a sea coast in Steventon, that she may have admired the hon. Gentleman’s area more than most.
Local children in Steventon still climb the old lime tree where Jane and her brother once played more than two centuries ago—a living reminder of the world that helped to inspire her enduring works. Equally, we still feel Austen’s influence in Basingstoke today. Across the town there are countless reminders of Austen’s legacy, not least the striking bronze statue outside the Willis Museum, created by the brilliant local artist Adam Roud, who is also in the Public Gallery today.
To mark the 250th anniversary of Austen’s birth, Hampshire Cultural Trust is co-ordinating wonderful tours of our area, giving us all the chance to explore the places that shaped her life and work. I am so pleased that Paul and others are here in Parliament today representing the great work that Hampshire Cultural Trust is doing. I also highlight the outstanding work of the Basingstoke Heritage Society, including the research undertaken by Debbie and Joan—who are also in the Public Gallery—into Jane Austen’s life in Basingstoke, which has been vital to preserving and celebrating her legacy in the town. My constituents handed me some helpful maps with points of interest just before the debate, should anyone want to peruse them later.
Right now the Willis Museum at the top of the town is hosting a brilliant exhibition, aptly named “Beyond the Bonnets”, on the women behind Jane Austen, shining a light on the often overlooked working women of the Regency period—the women who restored Elizabeth Bennet’s curls and washed her petticoats after that famous three-mile walk to Netherfield Park; the women who cooked for the Dashwoods at Norland Park; and the many other women whose unseen labour made the stories possible, yet so rarely receive any credit.
As we mark what would have been Jane Austen’s 250th birthday this week, there has never been a more fitting moment to visit Basingstoke and reflect on its place in her story. My sincere thanks go to Tamsin, who is also here today, and her team at Steventon’s Jane Austen 250 for their dedication to celebrating Austen’s legacy in our area, and for helping us all to discover the many ways our town influenced Jane Austen’s life, worldview and writing.
As much as I would like to give Basingstoke full credit as Austen’s muse, her life and literature were of course shaped by so many other places across the UK. Following her father’s retirement, the Austen family relocated to Bath, a setting that inspired “Persuasion” and “Northanger Abbey”. Five years later, after her father’s death, they returned to Hampshire, first to Southampton and then to Chawton. In this period Austen published “Sense and Sensibility”, “Pride and Prejudice”, “Mansfield Park” and “Emma”. Austen spent her final years in Winchester, where she was cared for by Giles Lyford during her illness. She died on 18 July 1817, at the age of 41, and was laid to rest in Winchester cathedral. I am sure the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) will comment later, but Austen’s influence in Winchester endures to this day, with the city hosting numerous events that celebrate the life and work of this very special Hampshire-born novelist.
Put simply, Austen reshaped the English novel. She perfected a narrative style that allowed readers to see the world through her heroines’ eyes, pioneering a realism that influenced writers such as Virginia Woolf and timeless narratives that inspired Helen Fielding’s “Bridget Jones” and, indeed, Heckerling’s “Clueless”, one of my favourite films. At its core, Austen’s style was characterised by her ability to weave her quick wit into her nuanced social commentary. Through interactions between her characters, she displayed the complex class dynamics at play at the time, and “Pride and Prejudice” captures it perfectly. The Bennets may belong to the gentry on paper, but at Netherfield Park they are frequently made to feel as though they do not quite belong alongside Mr Darcy and the Bingleys.
The social hierarchies of the period are also evident in the character of Charlotte Lucas from “Pride and Prejudice”—but as a vital means of securing her financial and social future. For many women of the so-called lower classes at the time, marriage was not simply for love; it was a matter of survival. As Austen so aptly reminds us:
“A woman is not to marry a man merely because she is asked, or because he is attached to her”,
but because he can offer her security in a world that grants her few other options. By reflecting real aspects of Regency-era life back to her readers with her flair and humour, Austen was able to endear readers who saw themselves in her characters and entertain those who did not, swiftly gaining her recognition among her contemporaries.
Austen’s novels did more than entertain and enlighten her readers at the time. They also hold up a mirror to us now, revealing much about who we are as a nation today—not least because it is rumoured that the character of Mr Darcy in “Bridget Jones”, Helen Fielding’s modern reimagining of “Pride and Prejudice”, was perhaps inspired by our very own Prime Minister.
On a more serious note, Austen’s novels reveal the foundations that our society is built on today. Her contribution to feminist progress has been raised time and again when I have spoken to constituents, friends and colleagues. In her own lifetime she did not experience much of the autonomy that women today enjoy. She lived under strict legal limitations on women’s rights and within a culture that offered little recognition of women as people in their own right. Women’s voices were rarely platformed, and their lives were often tightly policed—so much so that even showing an ankle was considered improper.
Women were expected to be seen to bolster their husband’s social status, but were never truly heard, treated as secondary citizens under the law of the time. This manifested in Austen’s own life as she initially had to publish under a masculine pseudonym to be taken seriously by contemporaries. Yet in the world she created on the page, Austen centred female voices that had hardly been acknowledged before, and in her own life she broke quiet but powerful barriers. She chose not to marry, rejecting a system that often defined a woman’s worth by her husband.
It is true that Austen did not campaign for women’s suffrage or other forms of reform, but she still did something transformative. Through her stories, she invited her readers to recognise women as full people with ambition, intellect and agency. In doing so, she quietly laid the groundwork for the generations of feminists who would follow. Austen may not have lived to see the freedoms that women now enjoy, but her influence helped to shape them, one honest, courageous sentence at a time. Today, as new barriers to gender equality emerge, including from online radicalisation around the world, her message remains an important reminder to approach politics with a respect for everyone’s humanity.
Jane Austen is not only a cornerstone of our national literary heritage, but a global phenomenon. More than two centuries after her death, her novels continue to inspire readers around the world—from the United States to Japan, India and beyond. Global fan societies, reading groups, academic conferences and adaptations for stage and screen all testify to the extraordinary reach of her work. Austen’s characters, wit and insights into human nature transcend time and place, uniting an international community of admirers who find her writing still speaks powerfully to modern life.
Beyond the far-reaching cultural impact of her work, Austen’s economic legacy also endures. In Hampshire, we enjoy what the Hampshire Cultural Trust calls the “Jane effect”: every year, we welcome millions of visitors who want to experience the landmarks and areas that shaped her writing. Austen continues to inspire devotion from readers all over the world, which in turn supports our local businesses and regional economy. Most notably, this year alone more than 92,000 copies of her novels were sold in the UK—an increase of a third on last year.
Austen’s stories have inspired so many high-grossing films and TV shows spanning decades, helping to sustain a thriving British film industry: de Wilde’s adaptation of “Emma” grossed millions as recently as 2020, and there is a huge buzz around Alderton’s upcoming adaption of “Pride and Prejudice”. To this day, there is still a fierce debate about whether Colin Firth’s or Matthew Macfadyen’s Mr Darcy reigns supreme—
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
There is no debate. [Laughter.]
Luke Murphy
Does the Minister want to intervene on that point? No? I am sure he will elucidate that in good time.
Austen’s enduring cultural impact is felt not only on a global scale, but powerfully at a local level, where it continues to shape and enrich Basingstoke’s vibrant film and arts scene. From the literary legacy of Jane Austen to the creative energy of today, the town has long sustained a strong and distinctive cultural identity. We are home to nationally recognised venues such as the Anvil, an outstanding concert hall that hosts everything from world-class performances to much-loved community events like the mayor’s variety show, and the Haymarket theatre, which continues to delight audiences with a programme of productions, from the festive sparkle of “The Crooners Christmas Special” and “Aladdin” to a wide range of acclaimed theatrical performances throughout the year.
One incredible show that came out of Basingstoke was our very own Phil Howe’s “Twelve Hours”, which depicts the story of Austen’s infamous short-lived engagement to Harris Bigg-Wither of Manydown. Our creative momentum is further strengthened by the Exit 6 film festival, a flagship Basingstoke event that draws visitors from across the globe and showcases independent short films and emerging filmmakers. Celebrating its 10th edition in 2025, Exit 6 exemplifies Basingstoke’s commitment to nurturing talent, championing new voices and sharing culture with the world. Together, all these institutions and events demonstrate the fact that the town does not simply inherit a cultural legacy but actively lives it, making Basingstoke a compelling and deserving choice for UK town of culture 2029, as I am sure everyone here agrees.
For 250 years, Jane Austen has enriched our literary heritage, our culture and, indeed, our economy through her sharp wit and romanticism, and her ability to capture the enduring nature of human relationships. What are the Government doing to celebrate and promote Jane Austen’s extraordinary legacy? How are we supporting today’s and tomorrow’s generations of female authors and artists? Given the central role that place played in shaping Austen’s life and career, and because it has also been the birthplace of other great British icons such as Burberry, and is now home to the Anvil, the Haymarket and the Proteus, and the Willis Museum, the Milestones Museum and much more, does the Minister agree that Basingstoke would be a deserving winner of the UK town of culture 2029, which is to be decided next year?
Basingstoke represents a notable chapter in Britain’s cultural and economic story, having produced globally recognised figures and brands. I am delighted to see so many colleagues here today to celebrate one of them—Jane Austen—and to acknowledge the vital role that our authors, artists and entrepreneurs play in shaping who we are as a nation.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
Well, if only the Conservatives were not full of pride and prejudice—sorry, I could not resist that. It is a great delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a Minister in possession of a good portfolio must be in want of a debate. When it turned out that the culture Minister was unavailable this afternoon, I wanted to embody another quote from “Northanger Abbey”:
“There is nothing I would not do for those who are really my friends. I have no notion of loving people by halves; it is not my nature.”
That is why I am here on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, although I am in the Department for Business and Trade.
I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this debate which, at one point, was in danger of becoming about tourism rather than Jane Austen. However, we had some good literary criticism later on, including going into the nature of the prose that Jane Austen wrote. It is always good to see an English degree put to use at some point in somebody’s career—I have one myself, so am delighted by it.
I am a bit disturbed, however, that we are talking about Jane Austen, and so far the character that people have referred to most and questioned the actions of is Mr Darcy. Surely we should be talking about the female actors who have appeared. The bigger question should be who is the better Lizzy Bennet: is it Jennifer Ehle or Keira Knightley? [Interruption.] Apparently there is no question about that either.
It was great to hear from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), although he has now disappeared, so he must be taking to heart another of Jane Austen’s lines:
“There is nothing like staying at home for real comfort.”
It was good to hear from him briefly, even though he has now departed. It is always good to hear from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who took us on a tour of his constituency as well, talking proudly about many of the tourist attractions. I will come on to the point about how Jane Austen has probably contributed to the modern economy of the UK more than any other single individual, Dickens may be able to challenge that, but hers is certainly a very significant contribution to our modern economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) spoke without claiming any particular identity with Austen for her constituency. I identified with her in this: I do not think that any of the characters from any of Jane Austen’s novels ever visited Rhondda, Ogmore, Blaengwarw, Blaenrhondda, Pontycymer or any of the other places that Hansard will not be able to spell.
It was also great to hear from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). As part of the celebrations earlier this year, I went to the Jane Austen Centre in Bath, which I think received 200,000 visitors in 2024. I am sure the numbers were larger this year. It has some fascinating items from Jane Austen’s life and the life of her family. The whole city feels like it is “Jane Austenville”, not only because of the bookshops—although Bath has some of the finest independent bookshops in the land—but because of the museums and houses there that have been used in film adaptations or television series. I will come on to “Bridgerton” later.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the Minister acknowledge the unbalanced literature that is still taught in schools, the majority of which is written by men as opposed to women?
Chris Bryant
In fact, the one book that we were recommended to read about Jane Austen was by a man, which seemed a little bit ironic. I will address some of those points later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) was querying what kind of clergyman I am; I think I am more Trollope really—it has been said before. Some of the clerical characters in Trollope are more my kind of style. The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is right that Jane Austen is buried in Winchester Cathedral. The initial gravestone referred to her mind, but not to her works. That was rectified in later years, which is really important. I suppose there was some kind of prejudice about the idea that a woman would not just have a mind but actually do something with it, which I am glad to say we have managed to overcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made an important point about how this debate is taking place two days after the anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth, but that it is also a day when the Government are bringing forward important legislation. One can interpret many of the scenes between men and women in Jane Austen’s books as being about coercive control—a point that my hon. Friend made well. I have already referred to the literary criticism offered the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). It is always good to hear from a Whip—unless one is in trouble and has forgotten a vote—and was great to have her in this debate.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), of whom I am enormously fond—well, anyway—tried to claim Jane Austen as a member of the modern Conservative party. I think he was trying to hand her a membership card. It is true that she was sceptical of revolution, but she also hated hypocrisy—make of that what you will. [Interruption.] I’m joking. She was sceptical of revolution, but in many ways she brought about a revolution in that she was able to publish books and get them printed, and she has continued to be a presence in a world that has been dominated by men, by male publishers and male writers for generation after generation. Sometimes there is a radicalism in quiet conservatism, and sometimes conservatism in quiet radicalism.
Obviously, Austen was famous as an author. It was mentioned earlier that some 92,000 copies of her books have been sold in the UK this year. It might be more by now because it was 78,500 by the end of June. Her writing is sometimes referred to as subtle, nuanced, clever; there is a comedy of manners involved in it. We have already heard the reference to the sharp prose that she engaged in. One of my favourite moments is when Darcy says to Lizzy:
“But it has been the study of my life to avoid those weaknesses, which often expose a strong understanding to ridicule.”
And Lizzy says:
“Such as vanity and pride.”
That is a burn—a real burn on a very arrogant man who is not able to see his own ridiculousness.
Austen has been vital to today’s creative industries. We have referred to several different versions of “Pride and Prejudice”. If we include “Clueless” and productions like that, probably $1.2 billion-worth of revenues have been generated from film and television adaptations. There was a great new production of “Emma” at the Theatre Royal in Bath earlier this year. Incidentally, the Theatre Royal in Bath is a wonderful institution that does not take a single penny from the Arts Council, because it has decided that it can do things on its own.
And then we have “Bridgerton”, which everybody recognises as sort of being by Jane Austen, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with her. One of its triumphs is not only that successive series have given us phenomenal storylines that feel Jane Austen-like—we kind of know where it is going to end up; it is not the twist that matters, but the getting there—but it has also given us Adjoa Andoh and a very brave moment of television where a black woman is cast as a queen in a period that clearly would not have had a black queen in the UK, and yet it is entirely characteristically Jane Austen. And of course it has given us the most beautiful man in the world, Jonathan Bailey—not according to me, but according to lots of other people—who plays one of the main leads. I see several Members smiling, so I think they agree.
Austen has done a phenomenal amount for tourism in the UK. I have already referred to the Jane Austen Centre in Bath. Many TV and film locations have managed to do extraordinarily well in recent years, including several aristocratic homes such as Lyme Park, which featured in “Pride and Prejudice”. It had 300,000 visitors last year, many of whom will have come because of the connection with the film. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked what the Government are doing. Well, VisitBritain has been trying to build on this sense of “starring Great Britain”. A lot of international visitors to the UK—we set a target of getting to 50 million visitors by 2030—have done so specifically to visit places they recognise because films were made there, including many of the Jane Austen adaptations. It is a really important part of what we do.
Likewise, Arts Council England has supported many literary-based projects, including quite a lot of Jane Austen ones this year. Alongside providing funding for the Jane Austen Fan Club and the “Sensibilities on the Bonnet” project, it has supported Southampton Forward, and God’s House Tower, which presented her writing desk as part of the Jane Austen 250 celebrations earlier this year, as has been mentioned. The Forest arts centre in Hampshire received support to research collections of early music, including that owned by Jane Austen and her sister, and the Dorset Museum & Art Gallery held a “Jane Austen: Down to the Sea” exhibition using funding from ACE, with support from the Government indemnity scheme, which ACE administers.
Several Members referred to one element of Jane Austen that I think is really important. We have heard half the quote I am about to give, but I will say the next line, which is just as important. On women, one of her characters said:
“I hate to hear you talking…as if women were all fine ladies, instead of rational creatures.”
The next line is:
“We none of us expect to be in smooth water all our days.”
The sense that a woman is far more than just the stereotype so much literature had created up to that time is a really important part of the radicalism inherent in Austen.
Jane Austen has not been the only woman writer in our history. Before her, the great playwright Aphra Behn wrote some phenomenal plays. Daphne du Maurier’s book “Rebecca” is one of the most read novels in our history. There are George Eliot, who often confuses people by being called that rather than Mary Ann Evans, and the Brontës. Agatha Christie, who made one of our biggest contributions to world literature, is renowned across the world—not only in the UK and the United States of America, but in large parts of Africa, China and south-east Asia. In recent years, we have had Hilary Mantel. Only a few days ago, I saw yet another version of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, which I think is probably the closest to the original, and Iris Murdoch is one of my favourite novelists. Austen’s role as a woman novelist who survived and managed to make a living, and who had female characters with three dimensions to them rather than just one or two, is such an important part of what she gave us.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup read this quotation from “Sense and Sensibility”:
“It is not what we say or think that defines us, but what we do.”
That is true. It is not just having a debate here today that defines what we think about Jane Austen; it is what we do, and I think we need to celebrate reading far more.
One of the problems for many young people—the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who used to be Education Secretary, will know how important this is—is getting them to read anything longer than a post or a tweet, or to watch something longer than two minutes, but being able to concentrate on the whole plot across 200 or 300 pages, or whatever it may be, is really important. We must have parents reading to their children and reading in schools, and we must have libraries in schools and in communities, because enabling people to read is a really important part of what we do. As Members of Parliament, we need to do far more to celebrate reading itself.
We should also celebrate publishing, because it is one of the things that the UK does phenomenally well. We export more books than any other country in the world, which is partly because we are a really good crossroads of the nations. Some of the best writing in the English language is written by people in India or Pakistan, or in Africa. We celebrate that as part of the publishing that we give to the rest of the world. Some of it is technical publishing, of course, but we should celebrate that part of our creative industries, and we should of course celebrate the knock-on effect of having so many of our great films and television series spring from books that have been written in the UK and by British writers.
Above all, I want us just to celebrate novels. Fiction is so important because it is so easy for us to be trapped in our own little world—the world that we know, are comfortable with and have chosen because we follow certain people and not others. I want people to go into a bookshop and browse. They should browse, and find something they would not otherwise find, or a novel telling a story that they would not otherwise know anything about. I remember reading a book a few years ago about a migrant coming to the UK on a small boat, and it completely changed my understanding of what somebody else’s life might be like. I am sure everybody who is listening to this debate will recognise the experience of seeing life from a completely different angle, because they read a fictional account. It is so important to be able to walk in somebody else’s shoes, empathise and sympathise, and embrace a wider set of possibilities in life. Of course, Jane Austen herself wrote:
“The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid.”
She really did have a point.
I am thinking of instituting something for next year. Next Christmas, when we have a debate like this, nobody should be allowed to take part unless they have read six good novels that were written that year—not just things from 500 years ago, 300 years ago or 100 years ago. No Member will be allowed to take part in the debate unless they have read—bought or from a library—six new novels.
I am going to make four recommendations of my own, all by women authors, from the last 18 months or so. The first is Samantha Harvey’s “Orbital”, which is a magnificent short novel; it is almost like poetry, the way that it is written. The second is Yael van der Wouden’s “The Safekeep”, which I have just finished reading. It is absolutely beautiful; it is set in the Netherlands, and the story is completely and utterly surprising. The third is Maggie O’Farrell’s “Hamnet”, the film of which has just been released. It is so moving and a beautiful rendition of another part of our literary history. The fourth is the book that I finished just before “The Safekeep”: Elizabeth Day’s “One of Us”. If anybody else wants to take part in next year’s debate, including you, Mr Efford, they have to have read six new novels by British authors.
Upgraded Free Trade Agreement with the Republic of Korea
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea have concluded negotiations on an upgraded free trade agreement. Building on the work of the previous Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Minister of State for Trade Policy and Economic Security, the new FTA builds on our existing agreement, which we carried over from the European Union and which came into force in 2021.
The agreement will support this Government’s mission to deliver economic growth by making it faster, cheaper and more predictable to do business with the Republic of Korea—a country with which the UK’s trade totalled £15.8 billion in 2024. The Republic of Korea is the world’s 12th largest economy, with a dynamic import market projected to grow by 26% in the next 10 years. We have protected and expanded key market access and agreed measures that will reduce barriers to trade. The deal reflects our shared ambition to strengthen ties while reinforcing our commitment to a rules-based trading system that promotes high standards. By concluding the agreement, the UK has also future-proofed its trading relationship with a key partner and reinforced its influence across the Asia-Pacific, a region forecasted to account for 10% of global growth by 2035.
We have secured continued tariff-free access for British business across 98% of Korean tariff lines in key industrial strategy growth sectors, including advanced manufacturing and life sciences, as well as key sectors such as food and drink. Both established exporters and new entrants will be able to trade on a stable, predictable footing, ensuring that renowned UK goods remain competitive in the Republic of Korea’s expanding market, supported by a trade framework tailored for British supply chains.
The UK is a services powerhouse, with Department for Business and Trade modelling estimating that services exports could increase by £400 million annually as a result of this agreement in the long run. Building on £1.1 billion worth of UK financial and insurance exports to the Republic of Korea in 2024, the agreement strengthens access to the Republic of Korea’s expanding financial market. The UK has secured meaningful commitments on data localisation and transparency, allowing British financial services firms to enter and operate in the Korean market with confidence. The agreement includes unprecedented commitments that strengthen UK insurers’ ability to provide a range of specialist insurance products to Korean clients.
The deal secures unmatched Government procurement opportunities in the Republic of Korea’s Sejong City, which procures an average of £46.2 million-worth of goods and services annually, as well as expanded access for UK advertising firms for public contracts. It also ensures fairer access to and use of public telecoms networks and services for UK suppliers by limiting the conditions placed on them when seeking access in the Republic of Korea. This will benefit suppliers across industries that rely on telecoms networks to provide their service, further supporting economic growth.
Our services exports are supported by a new and ambitious digital commerce chapter. This chapter is designed to support the 70% of services trade between the UK and the Republic of Korea that is now conducted digitally. This underscores the UK’s commitment to tech-driven trade, creating a more dynamic and future-ready environment for British businesses. We have also agreed commitments that promote and improve compatibility and interoperability of AI governance and policy frameworks. In practice, this means reducing unnecessary barriers so that the UK’s and the Republic of Korea’s businesses can use each other’s technology more easily and at lower cost. By strengthening co-operation with the Republic of Korea’s world-leading AI sector, the UK is delivering on its national AI strategy and showing its ambition to lead global conversations on safe, fair and innovative AI.
There will be streamlined access to import/export documents, simplified licensing rules and authorisation processes, and greater promotion of the use of English language and e-trade documents. Access to critical information such as financial regulations has also been improved. Collectively these reduce administrative burdens and allow British service suppliers, investors, and small and medium-sized enterprises to fully seize the opportunities offered by this dynamic market.
Simpler ways to qualify for tariff-free market access will make supply chains more resilient. This includes updated rules of origin that simplify how businesses prove where their products come from, reducing paperwork and speeding up processes. UK exports to the Republic of Korea supported around 92,000 jobs in 2020. Leading employers and business representative organisations such as Deloitte, the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders, and the Confederation of British Industry have welcomed the deal as a vital protection for the competitiveness of British goods and the thousands of jobs they support.
The upgraded agreement marks the Republic of Korea’s strongest set of commitments to date for agrifood exporters, including an upgraded provision for co-operation on animal welfare and a new article on antimicrobial resistance. The deal provides certainty for traders by ensuring that both the UK and the Republic of Korea can protect their biosecurity, while putting in place enhanced commitments, structures and processes that will allow us to avoid unnecessary trade barriers. These changes will help to protect supply chains from disruption and ensure that administrative processes remain predictable for UK business.
The FTA will also deepen the strategic relationship between our two nations, building on the Republic of Korea’s recent and significant inward investment into the UK. To support this, the deal introduces new co-operation pathways in critical areas such as innovation, gender equality and supply chains—the UK’s first dedicated chapter of its kind—to reinforce our shared commitment to future-facing collaboration. We have also embedded values on fairness and sustainability through collaboration on workers’ rights, through measures that address bribery and anti-corruption and through upgraded commitments in support of our ambitious environmental and climate goals.
We will now go through the steps to prepare this treaty for signature, and I look forward to updating the House further on this agreement in due course.
[HCWS1171]
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill
Chris Bryant ExcerptsMonday 15th December 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks 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
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We want businesses to grow, innovate, expand, invest, find new markets here and overseas, develop new products and new services, and bring them successfully to market. That often requires two forms of financial support from Government: grants and loans. 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.
Of course, as Trade Minister, I am ambitious about trying to get more UK companies to export. It is a shame that only one in 10 British businesses exports, compared with three out of 10 French businesses and four out of 10 German businesses. If we could match the ambition of other countries, that would be a significant boost to the UK economy.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
Gareth Snell
It’s nice to be loved, isn’t it, Madam Deputy Speaker? I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the Bill. On exports, the world-leading ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent tells me that there used to be a fund that allowed companies to get help with the cost of going to trade expositions or being part of trade delegations, and that meant they could take their wares around the world to try to get those all-important exports. That fund no longer exists. If that fund could be brought back, I know that ceramics companies in Stoke would appreciate the opportunity to export, as this country is trying to do. Will the Minister look at that?
Chris Bryant
There are funds. Especially when there is a new free trade agreement, as in relation to India at the moment, we help lots of businesses. Businesses in the beauty industry, which I know my hon. Friend knows a lot about, have gone to a recent exhibition in India, because under the FTA, India will be taking the tariff down from, I think, 20% or so to zero. That is a big opportunity for British businesses. There are sometimes funds available.
I will look at how the ceramics industry in particular is treated. As my hon. Friend knows, I would like to establish stronger support for the ceramics industry in general, because we should be proud of it. As he also knows, I am looking at the presents that we as Government Ministers give to other Government Ministers; we could be a bit more ambitious about ensuring that they are things that people really want, and perhaps they could come from one of our creative industries, such as ceramics.
Free trade agreements can get rid of tariffs, and that is a very important way of enabling more exports, but we can also often do a great deal by getting rid of the non-tariff barriers that exist in many countries. Export ambition, even from companies that would like to export, often needs financial assistance. That is precisely what UK Export Finance is there for.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was there first, and then I will take an intervention from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister).
Jim Shannon
I welcome what the Minister has said; he has clearly underlined that all parts of the United Kingdom can benefit. As the Minister will know, we are very fortunate in Northern Ireland to have a very strong agrifood sector, which promotes itself wherever it can across Europe, across the mainland and further afield. The defence sector is also active, and the Government help to create extra procurement and extra apprenticeships is very welcome. However, there are also small and medium-sized enterprises, which are mostly involved in engineering, and this group of businesses could do more. I ask the Minister, very kindly, whether he could give us an idea of what can be done for them. We want to encourage them to be involved and to export.
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. We are bringing forward this Bill because we are getting to the limit of what is allowed under current legislation and we need to expand that. I have specifically spoken to UK Export Finance about looking at new ways to support SMEs. The retail banking sector in the UK also sometimes needs to understand better how it can support small and medium-sized enterprises to export around the world. One of the things that I have been trying in my own small way is to do a supermarket sweep when I have been abroad for trade missions: to see whether Rose’s lime marmalade, Walker’s biscuits, Marmite, Irn-Bru or Penderyn whisky—or whatever it may be—is available around the world. The more we can encourage businesses to export, the more likely they are to prosper.
One of the advantages in Northern Ireland in particular is that, because of the Windsor framework, it has an opportunity to enter into an EU market much more readily than elsewhere. One of the sadnesses of Brexit is that 16,000 fewer businesses in the UK now export, and that is largely because they have given up on Europe. That is one of the things I radically want to change.
Chris Bryant
I can see the hon. and learned Gentleman is practically pregnant with a question.
Jim Allister
It is always good to hear about a rise in the availability of financial assistance to industry. In the context of Northern Ireland, the Minister has referred to the Windsor framework. One of its drawbacks is that Northern Ireland is subject to EU state aid rules. In my constituency, I have a large bus manufacturer that sells buses to Germany. Can I seek an assurance from the Minister that that company, for example, will not be disadvantaged by the cap in state aid rules in comparison with a competitor bus manufacturer in another part of the United Kingdom where there is not a state aid limitation?
Chris Bryant
This is one of the problems with Brexit, isn’t it? It has provided a variety of different sets of rules for different parts of the United Kingdom, and that was always one of its inherent problems. Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, and we are now trying to make it work as best we can. The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course there are going to be problems under state aid rules for some businesses in Northern Ireland. That is why we are trying to do two things at the same time: to ensure that the Windsor framework is adhered to, but also ensure that we have a single UK internal market.
The Bill is short—it just manages to get on to a second page—but it does some important things. First, it increases the Industrial Development Act limit on financial assistance from £12 billion to £20 billion. Secondly, it raises the amount that the Secretary of State may increase the limit by from £1 billion to £1.5 billion. That is something he can do four times under the 1982 Act. Thirdly, the Bill amends the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 to increase the commitment level from roughly £84 billion to £160 billion. Fourthly, the Bill allows the limit to be increased by increments of up to £15 billion by secondary legislation. Finally—this is perhaps the single most important and most useful thing to the ordinary punter out there—it changes the 1991 Act so that the limit is expressed in pounds sterling. In other words, it will be in common parlance, rather than referring to special drawing rights, which I think has confused an awful lot of people for a long time.
I will give just a few examples of why all of this matters. Some £14.5 billion of UK Export Finance support last year was used to support 70,000 jobs, adding £5.4 billion to GDP in the UK, including across several key industrial sectors such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and automotive.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear the Minister explaining what the Bill will do and how it will contribute to business, but in the creative industries and particularly in fashion, young designers struggle to access international markets and export finance. What are we going to do to support creative industries such as fashion so that we do not lose them in the UK?
Chris Bryant
That is an extremely good point. The creative industries are, of course, one of the eight key industrial sectors that we are keen to promote. The music export growth scheme is specifically intended to ensure that a wide variety of acts are able to tour around the world. We need to sort out with the European Union the issue of British acts being able to tour effectively and cost-effectively around Europe, but bands from Scotland, Wales and every part of England have been able to access that finance, and it is a key part of what we do.
As for fashion, I know that you try to do your bit, Madam Deputy Speaker—as, I am sure, do all Members who want to promote British fashion—but it is important to note that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport provides support for NewGen. A fair amount of London Fashion Week is supported by either the Department for Business and Trade or the DCMS, and many NewGen designers have gone on to achieve great success in the market. We also try to ensure that we have a presence in other fashion weeks, such as those in Paris and New York, and we provide other finance as well. There is a wide variety of measures, some of which are covered by the Bill, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the creative industries are very much part of what we are considering. I was struck by, in some—oh, I am not allowed to refer to those matters until tomorrow.
Sir Edward Leigh
Believe it or not, more than 30 years ago I was a Minister for fashion and regional policy. These things go round in a circle, and I warn the Minister —with some experience of this—that many companies were caught in a sort of Catch-22: if they were too successful, the Department of Trade and Industry would not let them be helped, and if they were not successful enough, there was always a risk that they might go bust. How is the Minister going to hit the sweet spot and make sure that we direct the money to where it is most needed?
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. He has made a very fair point. This is the classic problem for Governments when it comes to any industrial support, whether it is a loan or a grant: if the business is so successful, why does it need additional financial support? That is why, because of the structure that we have created through those two Acts, UK Export Finance actually makes money for the British Government. 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. However, when we provide a grant we have to ensure that it is intended to achieve a set series of aims. For instance, the £128 million—I think—that has been given to BioNTech is specifically designed to develop two new R&D hubs producing 400 new highly paid jobs in the life sciences sector, and also, incidentally, to tackle skin conditions and melanoma, which are among the subjects on which it is working.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that a difficult moment often arises, but one of the complaints I have received from quite a few sectors is that the UK can be a bit slow about deciding when we are going to support someone, and I want to be able to speed up that process as much as possible. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), I think the key to much of what we are trying to do involves supporting SMEs. 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.
I will make two more points, and then I will come to a close. Through existing provisions in the Industrial Development Act, the British Business Bank’s northern powerhouse investment fund II has directly invested £115 million in more than 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.
I am getting a feeling from the Chamber that everyone will be supporting the Bill. I think that, broadly speaking, it has cross-party support, and I think it important that we get it on the statute book soon enough to be able to provide that support for the businesses in the UK in the next financial year, so that we can prosper, grow the economy and protect jobs.
Chris Bryant
I thank colleagues for everything that they have had to say. I am not sure whether it was Reagan or Bush, but one of them went to France and said that the trouble with the French economy was that there was no French word for “entrepreneur”. It was repeated by a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, who went to Wales and said that there is no word in Welsh for “entrepreneur”—that was a bit ironic.
I will try to do something extraordinary, Madam Deputy Speaker, by answering the questions that have been put to the Government. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I don’t think it will catch on. I will start with the questions put by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). Her first question was about whether I can guarantee that no commercial finance will ever be used where UKEF finance is involved. The strict answer to that is no. However, UKEF’s mission is
“to ensure that no viable UK export should fail for lack of finance or insurance from the private sector.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) made the key point about cohering power. That is precisely what UKEF is able to provide. Sometimes, particularly under export development guarantees, UKEF funding can help to extend capacity or terms—that is an important part of what it does. It is not that there will never, ever be commercial finance and UKEF funding, but obviously we are not trying to supplant commercial funding. We are also aware, of course, that financial services are one of the key things that we do around the world. We are trying to shift our FTAs towards dealing not just with goods but with services, because that is where some of the added value is for the UK.
Several hon. Members have asked about regional disparities. Those are one of the key things we have charged UKEF with, and I know that it is keen to address them. I have a long list in my briefing notes of different parts of the country in which UKEF funding has been supportive or where there have been grants, but I will not lay them all out now.
The shadow Minister asked about new markets. That is often precisely what we are looking for: new markets for individual exporters and new markets for the UK in general. One area in which we have set aside money was specifically in relation to Ukraine, where the reconstruction will be one of the most important things for UK businesses to be involved in over future years. It will be difficult to get the insurance necessary to be able to provide that simply on the open market, which is why UKEF funding is particularly important.
The shadow Minister said that we should not export to companies that could do us harm. She is absolutely right about the side-stepping of sanctions on Russia. We have frequent discussions about that, and UKEF is particularly keen on carrying out due diligence on it. It is why we must constantly revise how we implement our sanctions regime, to ensure that it is doing damage to the Russian Federation’s economic advances.
Chris Bryant
Yes, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was here for the rest of the debate. [Interruption.] Oh, he was sitting on the Front Bench—I do apologise.
David Reed
I thank the Minister. Just on a point of clarification—I am sure that this will be hammered out in Committee—we have heard about the assistance that the Government have given over the past 15 months to UK Steel, Jaguar Land Rover and others, but it is important to talk about the significant cyber element. Jaguar Land Rover was hit by a big cyber-attack, and we saw a step change when the Government stepped in and essentially made British taxpayers the insurance company. Does the Minister see any risk in the Bill, and what message does it send to adversaries such as Russia, which he just mentioned?
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. We thought it was important to ensure that the guarantee was there so that the company was able to proceed. That would be of assistance not only to JLR, but to the extended supply chain, much of which needed to deliver precisely on time, because of the way the automative industry now works, and they did not have large stocks of things that they were keeping against the day when they might be called up by JLR.
We certainly do not want to be the insurer of last resort for everybody who gets into a cyber-security problem. That is why the Government have a cyber-strategy, and we are keen to ensure that businesses take that part of their responsibility seriously. We have seen the dramatic effects that it can have on the UK economy when that goes wrong; this is a serious point. I have seen no evidence that what happened at JLR was specifically related to Russia, but we must maintain vigilance on all these matters.
The shadow Minister’s final question—I am not leaving any of them out—was about how we make sure that posts know about UKEF. We have heard already from two of our trade envoys that posts are extremely well aware of the existence of UKEF, and of how completely transformative that can be when a business is seeking to expand into a particular market. I would say that the problem is that sometimes not enough businesses in the UK are aware of UKEF, which is one of the things I have been talking through with UKEF senior management.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) has been doing a magnificent job, because I have seen video footage of him on the “News at 10” in Togo, speaking in French. We are glad that we have such a linguist in our team, and he is right to raise some of the issues in relation to the EU. We want frictionless trade. That is what we were promised, and we are going to try to achieve it as far as we possibly can. Sometimes that will mean that we align as much as possible with the European Union, rather than diverge for the sake of divergence. Of course it means that we need to get more mutual recognition agreements in place. There is a series of industries where I would like to achieve that, not least architecture.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) gave the traditional single transferable EU speech from the Liberal Democrats. I agree with large chunks of what he was saying, but not with his final premise. As I say, within the parameters of what we have, we want to deliver frictionless trade as much as possible. Everybody in my Department laughs at me, but I often refer to floristry. There are florists in every constituency in this land, and if it costs more to bring flowers in from Europe than it did in the past, that is a problem for lots of small family businesses up and down the land. That is why sorting out sanitary and phytosanitary measures over the next few months is an important priority for the Government. He asked whether the target of 1,000 SMEs is ours or that of the previous Government—it is our target as well. We want to be ambitious about that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about spending decisions and accountability. If only he knew somebody on the Business and Trade Committee to whom he could talk about questions of UKEF. Oh no, he’s on it—I’d completely forgotten, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am sure there are plenty of means for him, but I gently say to him that in my experience, the whole system of accountability of expenditure in the House is pretty shabby. It is not my job to write how we should change that in the future, but he might come up with some suggestions and put them to others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) said that I had not aged a day since I was last a Minister under Queen Victoria, but I think he inadvertently misled the House; I hope at some time that he will be able to correct the record. He is absolutely right about arbitrary figures. There are arbitrary figures, and previous Acts of Parliament did not allow us to amend them to update them sufficiently in line with inflation—we need this primary legislation to do that.
My hon. Friend is also right about the steel industry. I assure him that our steel strategy will come out in the new year. It will be very clear about how important we think the steel industry is to the UK, and about having a sovereign capacity in the UK for a variety of different forms of steel manufacture. As I told the House last Thursday, I was in Brussels last Wednesday to meet Commissioner Šefčovič to talk about the EU steel safeguards, and to make sure it is understood that we are not the problem for the EU and the EU is not the problem for us, so we ought to be able to come to some agreement in that space. We know that our steel safeguard runs out at the end of June. We need to make sure that we have adequate measures in place thereafter, and we will do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) talked about the importance of exports, in particular for businesses in his own region. To give cite just one statistic, UKEF provided a £590 million loan for SeAH Wind UK, which is building an offshore wind factory in Teesside. It will create 750 jobs by 2027 and will assist the UK steel industry, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right and I agree with him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, who is another of our magnificent trade envoys, asked more questions than the shadow Minister—I am not sure whether he is auditioning for some other post. He is absolutely right about the importance of our critical minerals strategy. Our relationship with Africa will be essential to deliver on that; other countries are seeking to make inroads there, and we cannot leave that be. He asked how the updated UKEF strategy fitted with what we are doing today. Well, the new strategy simply cannot exist without the extension of the financial provisions that we are introducing through the Bill.
My hon. Friend also talked about the cohering power, which is very important. He said that I could read his views—I know can, because he gave me a letter only 10 days ago, which I have read and officials in the Department are reading as well. I am enormously grateful to our trade envoys, in particular those who provide clear reports when they come back from visits about the things that we have achieved. They are achieving those things as part of the UK team. In the new year, I want to vitalise the whole House so that all Members, who often know the businesses in their communities better than anybody else—certainly better than any Government Department—bring people to us who might be thinking about exporting in the future, so that we can strengthen that opportunity.
This Bill is about enabling Scottish indie acts like corto.alto and Young Fathers, and Wales’s the Bug Club, to tour the world. It is about funding low-carbon hydrogen production. It is about helping Superior Wellness to sell hot tubs and spas around the world. It is about enabling 3TOP Aviation to expand its sustainable aircraft services into new markets. It is about helping SRT Marine Systems to sell its maritime surveillance in Indonesia and Kuwait. It is about enabling UK businesses to get contracts to help build the new Dubai airport. It is about enabling BioNTech to open two new research and development hubs. It is about helping Kindeva in Loughborough and Clitheroe to develop new respiratory inhalers. It is about enabling a new multibillion-pound car battery factory, creating 4,000 jobs. It is about Scotch whisky and salmon, and Welsh whisky; aircraft engines and wings; life sciences and advanced manufacturing. It is about jobs and our prosperity, so I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will support the Bill tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Jake Richards.)
Question put and agreed to.
Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of the Industrial Development Act 1982 or the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 out of money so provided.—(Jake Richards.)
Question put and agreed to.