Global Britain

Conor Burns Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Let me thank the Secretary of State for holding this debate, albeit in the very strange circumstances we find ourselves in today. I said many months ago, when I came into this role, how important it was that we should have an open debate in Parliament and with the public about the challenges and opportunities that we will face after Brexit as an independent trading nation. Now, as 2020 is finally skulking away, those challenges and opportunities are upon us, and today’s debate is, if anything, long overdue, but no less welcome for that.

However, I think it would be remiss of me, as I think it was remiss of the Secretary of State, not to start by acknowledging the severe and rising problems affecting businesses engaged in trade across the channel and the Irish sea today. Trade that flowed freely just a few weeks ago is now grinding to a halt because of the barriers and bureaucracy that the realities of Brexit require. Let me be clear: those problems are always to some extent inevitable—they could only have been mitigated, not avoided entirely, by the adoption of a different approach to our deal with the EU—but three things that were not inevitable, and indeed were totally avoidable, are the lack of time that businesses had to prepare, the lack of support that they have been given to prepare and the lack of help available to them now. I recognise that not all of that is down to the Department for International Trade, but I do have three questions that I hope the Minister of State will be able to address later.

First, I asked the Secretary of State seven weeks ago if she would establish a dedicated helpline for companies facing problems with their exports after 1 January, and I was told in response that the Department already had a dedicated helpline for trade-related queries, which is the one it shares with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. That is all very welcome, except that if any businesses had called that number this weekend to ask for help with their problems at Dover or Holyhead, the automated response would have told them that the office was closed and that they should ring back at 9 o’clock on Monday. I hate to break this to DIT Ministers, but the import-export trade does not operate on office hours. That is why round-the-clock support was needed, especially during the period of transition, adaptation and confusion. I could see the clear need for that seven weeks ago; it is extraordinary that the Government still cannot see it now.

That lack of foresight could be related to my second question, which falls squarely on the shoulders of the Secretary of State. Given all the problems that were inevitable on 1 January and the consultation and preparation that were required to mitigate those problems, does she regret her decision last July, which I warned her against at the time, to scrap the advisory groups her predecessor set up to deal with customs issues and continuity of trade post Brexit? Does she also regret her inexplicable decision to remove from the advisory group on transport issues the representatives of the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the British Ports Association? At exactly the time she should have been listening to the experts, she was shutting them out of the room.

Thirdly, and finally, on the current issues affecting EU trade, will the Minister of State tell us at the end of the debate who in the Government is now in charge of that brief? Is it still the Minister for the Cabinet Office, his colleague the Secretary of State, the new Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, or the Chancellor, given his responsibility for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs? Looking at the chaos our exporters are facing today. I think we can all agree that someone in government has to get a grip and it would help if we all knew who is supposed to be doing the gripping.

Speaking of getting a grip, I come to the flurry of continuity agreements secured by the Secretary of State in December. Welcome though they were, there is something strange about the process followed for those agreements in the past year. Whenever I asked why no progress was being made, why the agreements were taking so long and why no deals were signed in the first nine months of the year, I was repeatedly told that they were very difficult and detailed negotiations which we could not expect to be done quickly. But when we look at the final text that emerged in December of one agreement after another, we see that they are clause for clause, word for word, identical to the EU treaties that went before them, apart from the words “European Union” being replaced with “United Kingdom”. The question is, therefore, exactly what were they discussing all that time?

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady will remember from our discussions about this that they were continuity agreements, and although, understandably, many of the partners with which we were seeking agreements had the ambition to do more at that time, we were seeking continuity. We explained to them that we would do more in due course, but we needed continuity to protect the terms of trade as we left the European Union. As for why it took so long, many of our partners did not think that we were actually going to leave and realised only late in the day that they needed to sign the agreements with us to protect our mutual trading arrangements.

[Emily Thornberry]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but it looks to me a bit like two people meeting to play chess and the two of them sitting there looking at the board, not moving the pieces, and eventually deciding to shake hands and declare a draw. The Secretary of State might say that that is what continuity agreements are and the Government just kept things as they were, but if that is her argument I do not understand why the deals were left until the last minute and why a number were not done at all. Most fundamentally, what is the point of being an independent trading nation, what is the point of choosing to negotiate our own trade agreements, if we are happy to just replicate every deal that was done years ago by the European Commission, rather than include any new provisions of our own?

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

To anyone in this House or beyond this House who thinks that global Britain is somehow an aspiration, not a reality, I would commend to them the excellent report by Robin Niblett of Chatham House entitled “Global Britain, Global Broker” where he points out that the United Kingdom already has a seat at all the key multinational organisations—the IMF, the G7 and the G20—and is a permanent veto-owning member of the UN Security Council, and that is before we even look at the Commonwealth or NATO. We are fourth-equal place with Germany and Japan in the number of full-time embassies and high commissions, and sixth in terms of defence spending.

I think we have an obligation to define what global Britain means. I would say, before I incur the wrath of my friends on the Northern Ireland Benches and the noble Baroness Hoey, that global Britain also includes Northern Ireland—it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Of course, it goes to much more than trade—it is also about foreign policy, security, intelligence, development and defence, which are all part of the complex infrastructure that represents the UK overseas. The challenge is for us to distil that into a coherent offer that the world will understand.

I have not spoken on the subject of trade since I left the Treasury Bench. I could say that I resigned or I could say that I did a job swap with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy. As I went around the world as Minister of State for trade, I was struck by the interest there was in the United Kingdom and what Brexit meant in terms of our ability to re-engage. People were interested in green technology, fintech, the City of London, financial services regulation, and what the UK could do in terms of infrastructure. When I was in Vietnam, Morocco, Algeria, Brazil, Chile and even the United States, there was huge interest. One could almost say that if global Britain were a Tinder profile, we would crash with the numbers seeking to swipe right. I beg the indulgence of the House briefly to place on record my thanks to those who worked with me at the Department for International Trade in my private office: my senior private secretary, Marcus; and St John, Alessandro and Emily. They were a delight to work with; I am not sure they would always say the same about me.

We have talked about values; trade delivers prosperity, jobs and the emergence of a middle class in poorer countries, and it is the emergence of a middle class that leads to the demand and drive for rights such as female emancipation, the education of girls, LGBT rights, freedom of speech and the rule of law—as distinct, of course, from rule by lawyers. We saw the same thing ourselves in the industrial revolution. As we look at doing joint economic and trade committees, trade agreements and all the rest, we should never forget that, fundamentally, this is about prosperity and dignity for individuals around the world. That aspect of what we call global Britain is not just economic or even political but is, in the most real of senses, a moral mission.