UK-EU Summit
David Chadwick Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and to be reminded of how old he was when I first came here; I hope he stays here as long as well, or maybe I do not hope for that as it might mean we Conservative Members will be on the Opposition Benches forever.
Today’s debate is on an important topic and there have been some very good contributions already, but I want to get to the bottom of what the Government really want out of this negotiation, because they have been a little bit tepid in coming forward on the key issues. I welcome the Government’s negotiations in India—finishing off a trade arrangement deal or whatever it is with the Indian Government. I welcome too that they have been able to begin to negotiate with the United States, although they have not secured a full trade deal. By the way, they would not have got a trade deal if the Democrats had got back into office because they rejected it for four years. In fact, President Biden said that there would be no trade deal with the UK. Let us not just observe that because the Democrats are not Trump, somehow they were going to give us a trade deal. I have my problems with the current President, but President Biden absolutely did not want trade with us; it was as simple as that. That was a mistake on his part. He had a real opportunity, because the trade deal was pretty much all done—and then it was binned.
There is also the question of the reason we are able to do these trade deals with the rest of the world, to which we export more than the European Union. We should do more of those trade deals. The Conservative Government did 73 after Brexit, although some of them were mopping up the ones that we had before. I stand ready to congratulate the Labour Government if they use the freedom Brexit gives them to get more trade arrangements, because that is what we are here for. I might want to press them further and say they could get a lot more out of the US, but that is another debate all together.
I do not disagree with the idea that the deal we did with the European Union is capable of being improved. Of course it is, because the EU put up many barriers in the course of that negotiation; it weaponised Northern Ireland distinctly, and that was a grave error on its part. It risked some of the process of peace in Northern Ireland by making it a critical negotiating tool that could be used as leverage later in the rest of the negotiations, and as a result we have been left with a problem in Northern Ireland. I encourage the Government to have a very good look at that. I did not vote for the Windsor agreement because I thought it did not solve the problem by a long chalk, and it has left Northern Ireland in the same position as before, with a couple of small modifications.
This debate is really about getting into the issue. I say to the Minister that the European Union did not play straight about phytosanitary from day one in the negotiations, and it still does not play straight. The fact is that our standards in animal welfare and product health are, and always have been, above those of the European Union. The European Union knows that. The reality is that somehow it decided that there had to be all these phytosanitary checks and changes, and it is desperately keen to get dynamic alignment now, because that means that there will be a rules-based order coming from the EU. That is what it has always wanted to do.
The truth is that the European Union does not have that arrangement with other countries around the world. For example, it is quite happy to have New Zealand vets check their products before departure. Those products go in through Rotterdam without any checks, other than checks that they came from the area specified. The EU knows which vets it authorises, so it does that. It could have done that here in the UK.
I sat down with Monsieur Barnier and a group of people to have a long discussion when the negotiations broke down as a result of what was going on here in Parliament, and I very much remember that we talked about trusting each other’s regulations and working with that trust to get an arrangement that made it as easy as possible to get goods across the border. He accepted that then, saying that, provided we could trust each other’s veterinary authorities, we would not need to have the phytosanitary rules as proposed at the moment. It was only later, when my party in government came back and did a terrible shimmy with him, that he thought he had it all, so he took it. The reality is that the EU knew all along, from the word go, that it was easier to put in place these arrangements than it made out.
I have always found the phytosanitary objection peculiar, because it could be sorted out very quickly. Our standards are higher than the EU’s, and our vets are quite capable of checking different producers to see whether they fit European standards. That is all it is: are they up to European standards, and are European standards up to ours when the EU exports to us? It is very simple. That can be done in every trade deal, and the EU already does it with other countries that are not, and have never been, part of that Union. There is an idea that to get this issue sorted, we would have to go into dynamic alignment and accept the EU’s rules over our products, but it would make it more difficult to make future trade arrangements if we were rule-takers from the European Union and could not negotiate these areas ourselves. That brings me back to my previous point.
Before I return to that issue, I want to raise another point. The trouble is that the argument I heard made—that a phytosanitary agreement involving dynamic alignment would address the price of food—is patently absurd. If SPS checks concerned the price of food, we could unilaterally relax them. They do not have to be where they are: that is our decision to take. It would not change or lower the price of food. If anything, it would be more likely to block us from doing a number of things, such as gene editing in food and work that we want to do that the European Union does not want to do. All these things put at risk where we may be in future trade arrangements and the direction in which we may want to develop farming here.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I want to make a couple of points on this issue before I give way.
We know, and everybody else around the world outside the EU knows, that the EU puts up very hidden tariff barriers. America is right about that; it complained that Europe finds all sorts of little regulations and problems, so that it cannot break in with its products and goods. That has happened for a long time, and it has happened with us—we know that it was even happening when we were in the EU. We are by nature a free-trading country, and there is no way on earth that we think the EU as a construct is as free trading in that sense. It wants to protect its markets more than anything else, rather than open up to the rest of the world.
David Chadwick
Welsh food and drink exports have fallen by 18% since 2018. Does that not evidence the damage that has been done to Wales by these deals?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
If damage has been done to exporting to the European Union, as I said earlier, that is about the attitude of the European Union to protectionism in the EU. Its trade with us has not fallen away on that basis, because we did not set up those barriers in the first place, so my argument to the hon. Gentleman is very simple: the European Union wants it all. That is the reality of what we are dealing with. It wants it all, and it negotiated in bad faith from the word go. We have an agreement, which is a pretty good agreement as trade agreements go. It is one of the largest trade agreements that we have. It can always be improved—I do not disagree with that—but the reality is that we need to deal with an organisation that is as relaxed about being fair to us as we are about being fair to it. That has been our biggest problem from the word go.
Returning to phytosanitary issues, I have had debates and discussions with the Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), in the past, and we have agreed with each other many times. I laud him for his stance on Russia and everything else—there is no question about that—but I want to quote from a little document that I came across from the Centre for European Reform. By the way, it is very complimentary to say that I read things that I do not agree with. I tend to do that quite a lot, strangely—it is a bad habit of mine, I know. That document is very close to how the European Union’s heads of department all think, and it says:
“Labour’s red lines do not extend to ruling out dynamic alignment or a role for the ECJ in dispute settlement.”
As such, I ask the Minister this simple question: is the Centre for European Reform correct? Do the Government’s red lines rule out dynamic alignment, or do they not? I will give way to the Minister right now, because I am generous like that, and he probably wants to answer that question. I tempt him to come to the Dispatch Box and say whether the Government’s red lines rule out dynamic alignment. Could they, and will they, agree to dynamic alignment and ECJ rules? I will give way to him now, because I see that he is beginning to move.
Trade Negotiations
David Chadwick Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
It is hardly a surprise that a member of the Trump Administration should talk about America first. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the north star by which we have negotiated is the UK’s national interest. Today’s agreement reflects the quiet but determined diplomacy of a serious Prime Minister to deliver a deal. The hon. Gentleman’s party does not have a great track record on serious Prime Ministers, or on beef quotas. To put today’s announcement in context, the hon. Gentleman’s Government agreed to a UK-Australia FTA with a beef tariff rate quota of 35,000 tonnes per year. That might be a point that he wants to make to farmers in the Borders.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Welsh farmers have been reaping the rewards of high beef prices over the past few years. That has been the one piece of good news in the industry. They now hear that another Government have signed another trade deal allowing even more beef imports into our country. Why have the Government decided to include beef imports in the deal, and to kick our farmers in the teeth again?
Mr Alexander
I simply do not recognise the aeriated contribution that the hon. Gentleman has made. He has an important and legitimate role in representing farmers in his constituency and more broadly, but I assure him that if he looks at the numbers, including the quota agreed by the previous Government, and the relatively modest shift in the tariff rate quota on beef that has been agreed today, his concerns will be allayed.
Trade Negotiations
David Chadwick Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
Given the significant progress we have made on goods, it is right to recognise that there are also huge opportunities on services. I pay tribute to the tech sector in the United Kingdom and to the extraordinary work that is being done not just in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but more broadly. The City of London, I am glad to say, has become a significant global tech hub, not least for fintech. Chris Hayward, policy chairman of the City of London Corporation, said today that
“India is a key strategic partner, and this deal reflects our shared ambition to deepen trade ties, boost investment, and build lasting collaboration.”
Whether in technology, fintech or financial services, there are huge opportunities as a result of this deal.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Steel tariffs were reportedly a major sticking point in these trade negotiations with India. That is of particular concern to communities across south Wales, especially following Tata’s decision to shut down its blast furnaces in Wales and across Europe while simultaneously investing in new capacity in India. Can the Minister assure the House that British steelworkers have not been sacrificed in order to secure this deal, and can he confirm what tariff rate Indian steel imports will face when the agreement comes into effect?
Mr Alexander
It was this Government who recently stepped in to save British Steel in order to save thousands of jobs and avoid a sudden collapse in our primary steelmaking capacity. Thanks to this Government’s swift intervention, we were able to secure the raw materials that kept the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe alight. British Steel has also cancelled the redundancy consultation that would otherwise have put 2,700 jobs at risk. Frankly, UK industry depends on the UK steel industry and thanks to our plan for change, demand is set to increase, as we build the 1.5 million homes, the railways, the schools and the hospitals that we need to usher in a decade of national renewal. That is the context in which we have taken forward today’s announcement.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Chadwick Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
There is no greater threat to our Union than the feeling that workers in one nation matter less than those in another. People in and around Port Talbot feel that they have had a rotten deal. Can the Minister explain why, under the deal that her Government did with Tata, workers who had been at the company for longer than 25 years did not have that service reflected in their redundancy payments, and why workers wishing to access the retraining elements had to forgo their rights to the enhanced redundancy payment? Is it true that, as has been reported, as of February, only three people had applied for that scheme?
Jo Stevens
Tata made the decision to close the blast furnaces in January 2024, six months before the general election. It closed the coke ovens in March 2024, when an agreement on the grant for the electric arc furnace had already been made. The hon. Gentleman might remember that blast furnace 5 closed down on polling day. The timeline was fixed for that electric arc furnace to be delivered. In 10 weeks, we negotiated a better deal, with better terms and protections for the whole workforce at Port Talbot. There were no immediate compulsory redundancies. We saw the best voluntary redundancy package ever offered by Tata to its UK workforce. We saved 5,000 jobs, and 385 acres of land are being released for development, regeneration and future opportunities at the site. All in all, this was £1.3 billion investment deal. That is very different from the situation in Scunthorpe.
European Union: UK Membership
David Chadwick Excerpts(2 months 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
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing this debate, as well as everyone who signed the petition. We all know by now that, thanks to the Conservatives and their allies in Reform, the relationship between the UK, Wales and the EU has been severely damaged. Falling out with our neighbours is particularly self-defeating during this fracturing era of global politics, and Wales is paying a particularly heavy price for that fraying relationship.
We are a nation of manufacturers, small businesses and farmers, and those three sectors have been throttled by red tape, hindering our trade with the European Union. In my constituency, a small local business in Radnorshire that makes parts for classic motorcycles is heavily reliant on EU trade, yet over Christmas, with no warning from the Department for Business and Trade, it was told that it was now incompatible with EU directives. That is just one example of how Brexit-related bureaucracy is harming businesses and damaging trade with our neighbours.
Farmers and the food and drink industry across Wales are also waiting for the long-promised UK veterinary agreement. Studies show that such an agreement could boost UK agrifood exports to the EU by at least 22%, providing a vital boost to rural areas such as mine. However, we have still received no timeline from the current Labour Government on when that is likely to happen.
It is not just the economic impact, though, but the cultural and social loss for young people. I thank my good fortune that I had the opportunity to live and study at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Those sorts of opportunities broaden horizons and contribute to growth. One of the cruellest and most short-sighted decisions by the previous Government was pulling us out of the Erasmus programme. In Wales, the Liberal Democrats stepped up to reverse the damage. Former Education Minister Kirsty Williams introduced the Taith exchange programme that, unlike its English counterpart, has been praised for ensuring accessibility for students from less privileged backgrounds.
Ultimately, the Liberal Democrats want to see the UK back at the heart of Europe, which would mean rejoining Erasmus, tearing down trade barriers and signing a youth mobility scheme with our EU counterparts —something the Labour Government have so far refused to do. The arc of human progress should ensure that older generations pass on more opportunities to younger generations than they have themselves enjoyed. We are living in a time when that arc of progress has gone into reverse, and us pro-Europeans must now win the argument for a stronger EU with Great Britain at its heart.
I was concerned to hear the word “pragmatic” used several times in this debate, because it sounds like pragmatic reasons are being given as excuses for not making more progress in rebuilding our relationship with the EU. We should be concerned by talk about pragmatism and arguments made solely in rational language, because those arguments failed miserably in 2016, when arguments were built as to why we should stay in the European Union based solely on rational economic language.
The EU is a pragmatic project, but at its core it is also an idealistic one. It is a project grounded in ideals, and in the idea that the nations of central Europe should never go to war again. It succeeded in that mission, making it one of the most successful political projects ever in mankind’s history. When we are making the argument for rejoining the European Union, let us use the language of idealism, not just rationalism. Unless we build a case for the UK to rejoin the EU based on idealist language and get people to buy into the ideals on which the European Union was founded, we will not have long-term buy-in to the project among the people we need to convince.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Chadwick Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The national insurance increase is set to hit high streets in Wales hard, with many traders saying that they will lay off staff as a result. Last week, the Government announced £100 million of funding to be spent on reinvigorating Welsh high streets, but no towns in the Swansea, Neath or Amman valleys were on that list. Will the Secretary of State clarify the criteria used to select the successful towns and whether areas such as Ystalyfera can expect to benefit from future funding? That is one high street that is certainly worth investing in.
Jo Stevens
The criterion for the announcement last week is publicly available; I suggest the hon. Gentleman has a look at it.
Storm Darragh
David Chadwick Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Oppong-Asare
As my hon. Friend mentions, up to 2.3 million customers lost power during the storm. As of this morning, as I mentioned, just under 24,000 customers are without power. The Government have been reassured that the operators are due to reconnect them all by tomorrow.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I join the House in paying tribute to the emergency services, including Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service and Dyfed-Powys police, as well as Powys county council in my constituency, which have been working tirelessly to keep people safe over the past few days. Communities across Wales, including in my constituency, have been battered by this storm only a few weeks after already taking significant damage from Storm Bert. Many of my constituents in the Swansea valley were left without power for over 48 hours and some may not have power restored until Thursday. Likewise, many water supplies have been disrupted and towns such as Builth Wells have experienced significant flooding. What support are the UK Government providing to Wales to ensure that power is restored as soon as possible to those households?