UK-Taiwan Enhanced Trade Partnership

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

I am pleased to announce that the three pillars under the UK-Taiwan enhanced trade partnership, on investment, digital trade, and energy and net zero, were signed on 30 June. The signing took place between the UK representative at the British Office Taipei, Ruth Bradley-Jones, and the Taipei representative to the UK, Vincent Chin-Hsiang Yao. I witnessed this signing alongside Executive Yuan Minister without Portfolio Yang Jen-ni during my trip to Taipei where I also co-chaired the 27th UK-Taiwan trade talks.

The ETP pillars are non-legally binding arrangements which will create frameworks to further enhance trade, investment and economic co-operation between the UK and Taiwan. They build on commitments made under the existing UK-Taiwan ETP signed on 14 November 2023. The ETP pillars will support the unofficial relationship between the UK and Taiwan, delivering benefits to both economies. Their content has been informed by engagement with UK businesses, to ensure that they will deliver tangible results over time, supporting the already strong, long-standing trade relationship between the UK and Taiwan which was worth £9.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q4 2024.

The No. 1 priority of this Government is economic growth. “The UK’s Trade Strategy”, launched on 26 June, sets out our approach to maximise trade opportunities to support the UK’s growth mission. Utilising flexible trading arrangements and partnerships, like this ETP, demonstrates this Government’s agile and targeted approach to trade policy, which will be key in driving UK growth.

The digital trade, investment and energy and net zero pillars are available on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS750]

UK Trade Strategy

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

I am pleased to announce that today, 26 June, the Department of Business and Trade has published the UK’s trade strategy, setting out the Government’s plan to maximise trade opportunities to support growth.

Following the publication of the Government’s industrial strategy on Monday, 23 June, which catalyses 10 years of sustained economic growth in our most important sectors and their supply chains and workforces, the trade strategy positions the UK to address the international environment and to be a key influencer on the world stage using free trade, while also reflecting the needs of British businesses in a changing world.

This Government were elected to deliver our plan for change, and, in doing so, to improve the lives of working people and strengthen our country. This included a clear manifesto commitment to publish a strategy that would set out our response to the changing trading environment. This strategy follows our landmark deal with India, the UK-US economic prosperity deal and resetting our relationship with the EU—all of which have been achieved in the first year of the Government.

Having engaged extensively with business, the UK trade strategy is rooted in data and seeks to reflect not only the changing character of the UK economy, but the challenging geoeconomic and geopolitical context of the coming decade. Our trade strategy acknowledges that the structures that we have relied on to be a successful open economy need to adapt to accommodate the changing global trading environment.

Global trade is entering a new era of turbulence, with geopolitical tensions, geoeconomic challenges and technological disruption reshaping the international order. We are witnessing a rise in protectionism, supply chain vulnerabilities and challenges to the multilateral system.

All of these factors necessitate a fresh approach to trade policy. As a services superpower, the UK stands uniquely poised to thrive amid these challenges.

Our trade strategy sets out our prioritisation of markets that present the biggest opportunity to UK businesses, encouraging the use of our varied range of trade policy tools. This will be supported by the new Ricardo fund to help UK regulators remove regulatory barriers for businesses trading abroad.

The trade strategy strengthens our business support, with a particular focus on simplifying and digitalising border processes and introducing measures to protect businesses against economic pressure by strengthening our approach to trade defence: making our trade remedies system more accessible, assertive and agile; reviewing our trade defence instruments; and ensuring businesses are supported by establishing an economic security advisory service.

Finally, the trade strategy outlines how it goes hand-in-hand with our wider Government objectives such as our support to developing countries and our environmental commitments.

[HCWS740]

Switzerland Free Trade Agreement Negotiations: Round 7

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

The seventh round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement with Switzerland took place in London between 5 and 13 June 2025.

Economic growth is our first mission in government and FTAs have an important role to play in achieving this. An enhanced trade agreement with Switzerland will support British businesses, back British jobs, and put more money in people’s pockets.

Switzerland is the UK’s 10th biggest trading partner and the UK-Swiss trade relationship was worth more than £45 billion in 2024. Services exports account for more than £18 billion of this, making Switzerland the UK’s sixth largest services export partner. This included over £700 million from Scotland and £1 billion from the north-west in 2022. The trading relationship supported 130,000 services jobs across the UK in 2020.

An enhanced FTA with Switzerland 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.

This round saw momentum in a number of areas:

Services and investment

Constructive discussions were held across services, including with regard to market access.

Negotiators also made good progress and agreed several key commitments in cross-border trade in services and domestic regulation. Progress was also made on financial services, with both sides confirming our shared ambition in this area.

On mobility, talks focused on long-term certainty for UK businesspersons travelling to and delivering services in Switzerland.

Innovation

Both sides discussed how the FTA can support trade in innovative goods and services. This could include mechanisms to bring together businesses, academia and Government to discuss ways to address any trade barriers and opportunities that arise from innovation in the future. This is an important request from businesses in the UK and Switzerland.

Intellectual property

During this round, the UK and Switzerland focused on geographical indications, with the aim of retaining the GIs already protected by the UK and Switzerland as well as establishing a streamlined process for the protection of new GIs. Negotiations will continue with the aim of agreeing a comprehensive framework for the protection of intellectual property.

Goods

Progress was made on goods market access as we continue the process of modernising the existing agreement. The 99% of UK goods exports to Switzerland by value are already tariff free. We reached provisional agreement on rules of origin which will make it easier for UK businesses to use imported materials in their exports to Switzerland through a new cumulation article and provide continuity by preserving the existing product specific rules.

We also reached provisional agreement during the round on policy areas including dispute settlement, development, consumer protection, animal welfare and anti-corruption.

Next steps

Round 8 of negotiations is set to take place in Switzerland in autumn 2025.

The Government are focused 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.

[HCWS737]

UK-Singapore Investment Treaty

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

The Government will shortly end negotiations with Singapore on the UK-Singapore bilateral investment treaty.

Negotiations were launched in March 2023 to strengthen the UK-Singapore investment relationship, through agreeing modern provisions to guarantee high standards of fair treatment for investors, in line with a commitment in the 2020 UK-Singapore free trade agreement. As British investors in Singapore now benefit from the high-standard investment protections gained through our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership (having formally joined in December 2024), we are ending negotiations on the UK-Singapore BIT. We will instead focus on efforts to further facilitate and promote investment and to boost our economic growth, as well as to build on the stock of UK investment in Singapore, and Singapore’s stock of investment in the UK, which stand at £15.7 billion and £19.3 billion respectively.

The strong co-operative relationship between the UK and Singapore extends beyond investment. On digital trade, seven memoranda of understanding signed alongside the UK-Singapore digital economy agreement facilitate co-operation in several key areas, including fintech and lawtech services. Trade digitalisation pilots conducted under the DEA demonstrated significant business benefits to trade in goods, including a 40% reduction in trade processing time, an 89% reduction in paperwork, and a 67% improvement in staff productivity. We are looking forward to continuing our close collaboration on digital innovation.

To further strengthen our trading relationship, we will continue to work closely with Singapore, as part of CPTPP, to modernise trade rules and promote deeper co-operation with other economies, including through accessions and the general review.

[HCWS695]

Arms and Military Cargo Export Controls: Israel

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

I am responding on this issue on behalf of the Government tonight, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) for securing this important and timely debate. Let me address the House this evening by first setting out the Government’s policy, and then setting out our approach to transparency, which formed a key part of my hon. Friend’s contribution.

It is accepted on all sides of this House that, as the Government have made clear, what was witnessed on 7 October 2023 was not an act of liberation, but an act of barbarism by Hamas. Over the many months of this conflict, the UK Government have made the case for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all the hostages detained, the protection of civilians, access for aid and aid workers to Gaza, and the need for a path to long-term peace and security in the region. The responsibility of Hamas is clear, but so too is the appalling humanitarian crisis that has since unfolded in Gaza as a result of Israel’s subsequent actions. The way in which Israel is conducting its operations is indefensible, disproportionate, and—in the view of the UK Government—counterproductive to any lasting peace settlement.

The Government’s policy remains that the only way to secure peace and stability is through an immediate ceasefire, the release of the hostages held captive by Hamas, the protection of civilians, and the lifting of all Israeli restrictions on aid being sent into Gaza. Last month, at the United Nations Security Council, the UK Government made the case for urgent humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, and expressed our outrage at both the killing of Palestinian Red Crescent workers and the strikes on the UN Office for Project Services compound in March. We also issued a statement with 27 international partners on the mechanisms needed to deliver those vital aid supplies, and together with the leaders of France and Canada, we made clear our strong opposition to the latest expansion of Israel’s military operations.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Alexander]

Let me make a little progress, and then I will be open to interventions.

I turn next to the actions taken by this Government in support of those statements. We have supported the restoration of funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; we have suspended arms licences; we provided £129 million in humanitarian assistance to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the last financial year; and we have decided to suspend negotiations on the upgraded free trade agreement with this Israeli Government.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

In the week before last, the Foreign Secretary said that we were suspending arms negotiations with the Israeli Government, yet just last week, we had a trade envoy—Lord Austin—visiting Israel and saying how wonderful it was to be there. Can the Minister please explain how those two matters do not contradict each other?

[Mr Alexander]

There are long-standing relationships of trade and economics with Israel—for instance, as I understand it, one in eight of the prescribed drugs available through the national health service is provided by an Israeli company. We have taken a clear position of not upgrading the free trade agreement but recognising, for example, that those supplies are important. The trade envoy roles are accountable to the Secretary of State in the Department for Business and Trade, and we were clear that Lord Austin would not directly deal with the Israeli Government when he was there and has no responsibility for the free trade agreement negotiations that otherwise would have been taking place in the coming months.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Alexander]

Let me make a little more progress, then I will be happy to take further interventions.

I will turn to the specific issue of export licences. On coming into office, the Foreign Secretary commissioned an immediate assessment into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law. On the basis of that assessment, on 2 September, we suspended arms export licences for items to the Israel Defence Forces that could be used in military operations in Gaza.

As a result of that decision, licences were suspended for a range of military equipment, stopping the export of F-16 fighter aircraft components, of targeting systems and of licensable parts that make unmanned aerial vehicles. That measure is still in place. I reiterate that based on our current assessment of potential breaches of international humanitarian law, we are not licensing military equipment provided directly to the IDF that could be used for military operations in Gaza.

It is right to acknowledge that our export licences granted in relation to Israel cover a wider remit than simply those items that may be used in Gaza. There are a relatively small number of licences for the IDF relating to equipment that we assess would not be used in the current conflict, including, for example, parts for air defence systems that defend Israel from acts such as the major aerial attack from Iran in April 2024.

We also think it is right to continue to provide military grade body armour used by non-governmental organisations and journalists, and to provide parts of the supply chain that are ultimately re-exported out of Israel to support the defence of our NATO allies. The Government are fully committed to upholding our responsibilities under domestic and international law, and have acted in a manner consistent with our legal obligations, including under the arms trade treaty and the genocide convention.

On the global F-35 programme, we are of course facing a critical moment of European security, with war on the continent at our neighbours’ doorsteps. Undermining the F-35 programme at this juncture would, in the Government’s view, disrupt international peace and security, NATO deterrence and European defence as a whole.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Alexander]

Let me finish the explanation, then I will be happy to take interventions.

Our exporters provide components for the F-35 aircraft to a global spares pool and the common production line for new aircraft, where they have no sight and no control over the specific ultimate end users for their exports. Put plainly, it is not possible to suspend licensing of F-35 components for use by one F-35 nation without ceasing supply to the entire global F-35 programme. It was therefore judged necessary by the Government to exclude F-35 components from the scope of the suspension.

Let me be very clear, however, that the UK Government are not selling F-35 components directly to the Israeli authorities. The licence that allows the export of F-35 components was amended in September to specifically make it clear that direct shipments to Israel for use in Israel are not permitted.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) mentioned the Government’s red lines. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade said that there were red lines that would make the Government stop sending F-35 parts, but the Minister has just been clear that it is not possible to stop sending those parts. If the Secretary of State says that there are red lines—and how are we not at those red lines, given what is happening in Gaza—what exactly is going on?

[Mr Alexander]

We are not directly sending parts to Israel for the F-35s. We are continuing to support the global component pool of the F-35 programme for the reason that I have set out. We as a Government judge that there is a material risk to the security of our NATO allies, and more broadly to European security, if the F-35 aircraft that are used by a number of our allies were no longer able to secure the supplies and the aircraft were therefore no longer able to fly.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to understand who is making the rules about the spare parts pool. Surely if we are trading into that pool, we have a right to set the rules. If those components are going on to F-35s that are being bought by Israel, we have a right to block those parts or to kick Israel out, as we did with Turkey in 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

We make approximately 15% of the components that contribute to the F-35 programme; it is an international programme of which we are but one partner. We continue to supply the programme because our judgment as a Government is that not doing so would undermine the continuing functioning of the programme, which is in the Government’s view, as I say, of critical importance to European and global security.

[Richard Burgon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I have given way several times on that point, so I am keen to make some progress. The Government have made these judgments calmly and soberly, and will continue to do so with full awareness of our responsibility.

Let me now turn to the question of transparency. As the UK Government, we publish quarterly official statistics and an annual report about export licences granted and refused. We provide a searchable database allowing users to produce bespoke reports, drawing on this data, and we are committed to openness on strategic export licensing, which provides the means for Parliament and the public to hold us to account.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I am keen to make a little more progress before I take further interventions.

Because these are exceptional circumstances, the Government have heard requests from Members on both sides of the House for us to release further details, including information on licence applications in progress, and as full information as we can disclose on the types of equipment that are covered by each extant licence. Recognising the exceptional nature of this issue and the importance of providing transparent and robust information to ensure that Parliament and the public can hold the Government to account, in December we laid in the Library of the House an exceptional release of export licensing data focused specifically on Israel, setting out plainly how many licences remained extant at that time, how many had been granted since June 2024, and how many had been refused.

In summarising that release, let me assure Members that remaining licences relate to non-military items, military items for civilian use, or items not for use in military operations in Gaza. These licences also extend to components in items for re-export to other countries—that is, those that then leave Israel. Ongoing licensing applications are also decided on that basis. In fact, of the 352 licences extant for Israel, as of 6 December 191 were non-military. They included commercial aircraft components, equipment for private manufacturing firms, and parts for submersible vessels for use in scientific research. That left 161 licences relating to military equipment. However, less than half those related to the Government of Israel or the IDF. Most related either to UK components that private Israeli companies would incorporate before re-exporting an item to a third country, or to military-grade equipment for civilians such as body armour for journalists and NGOs.

I can advise the House that recent reporting on this topic does not provide distinctions between items for civilian and for military use, or between items remaining in Israel and those for re-export. The UK is not allowing the direct export of arms for use in Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

[Richard Burgon]

The Minister is giving a detailed response, but may I return him to the issue of the international pool of F-35 spares? Is it the Government’s contention that a conditional licence is impossible—that is, that we could provide F-35 spares, but on the basis that they are not then sent to Israel to be used in Gaza?

[Mr Alexander]

I am acutely conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker. The exclusion from the suspension decision for F-35 components should not, in principle, apply to licences for F-35 components that could be identified as going to Israel for use by Israel. Exports of F-35 components directly to Israel are therefore suspended unless they are for re-export.

Let me return to the specific point that I know has been the subject of much scrutiny in relation to recent reporting outside the House. The majority of military licences approved last year are for components of military items for re-export to third countries, including the UK’s NATO allies, of about £142 million-worth of military goods licensed for Israel and in 2024. The vast majority of that overall value was supporting the production of items for use outside Israel. That includes more than £120 million, or about 85% of the total licence value, for components to support exports of military items from Israeli companies to a single programme for a NATO ally.

These remaining licences have no utility in military operations in Gaza. The suspension of such licences was not required by our export licence criteria, and would have done nothing but harm UK companies and UK businesses engaged in authorised and legal trade. Since September, we have refused all licence applications for military goods that might be used by Israel in the current conflict in line with the suspension decision. More applications were refused in 2024 than in the preceding four years combined.

Question put and agreed to.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

On 16 May 2025, CPTPP parties met in Jeju, Republic of Korea, in the margins of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Ministers Responsible for Trade conference. Those present comprised Ministers and representatives of Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United Kingdom and Vietnam.

The meeting provided a strategic mid-year point to assess CPTPP’s objectives for 2025 and agree ambitions for the coming year. Following the meeting, CPTPP parties issued a joint ministerial statement that covers the following important areas:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cptpp-joint-ministerial-statement-in-jeju-16-may-2025

Trade and Investment Dialogues with the EU and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)

In the light of increasing challenges across the global economic landscape, CPTPP Parties welcomed the opportunity to advance the trade and investment initiatives identified in the Vancouver statement—Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) joint ministerial statement, 28 November 2024 - GOV.UK—published in November 2024, through agreement to pursue dialogues with the EU and ASEAN. These dialogues would aim to promote shared trade and investment interests and reinforce CPTPP’s role in the global economic architecture, and CPTPP parties committed to pursuing them as soon as possible in 2025.

The general review

Parties noted progress with the CPTPP general review and highlighted the importance of officials providing recommendations before the end of the year on ways to update and enhance the agreement. Areas of strong UK interest, such as e-commerce and financial services, remain at the forefront of the review.

Future accessions to CPTPP

Parties discussed the importance of CPTPP’s continued expansion and welcomed the progress made on Costa Rica’s accession process.

Next steps

We welcome the conclusions reached in the Jeju joint ministerial statement and will continue working closely with CPTPP parties to drive significant economic and strategic gains from our CPTPP membership, whether that be as we widen the agreement through accessions, deepen it through the general review, or build bridges with key partners across the world through establishing new dialogues.

CPTPP Ministers will convene again towards the end of this year for the CPTPP Commission meeting under Australia’s chairship, and I look forward to keeping the House updated with further developments.

[HCWS646]

Trade Negotiations

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me make the statement, as requested.

Within the last couple of hours, a deal has been announced by the Prime Minister and President Trump respectively. I therefore welcome the opportunity to update the House on the terms of the agreement that has just been reached. Back in February, I stood before the House and said:

“What British industry needs and deserves is not a knee-jerk reaction but a cool and clear-headed sense of the UK’s national interest, based on a full assessment of all the implications of US actions.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 182.]

It is this approach, which the Government have taken, that has brought us to the front of the queue today. Indeed, no other country has been able to secure an exemption from the tariffs imposed by the United States until today.

In March, the United States Government announced tariffs on steel, aluminium and autos. This was followed by an announcement of a global tariff, with the UK on the lowest rate of 10%. Throughout this period, the UK Government have been engaged in an intensive and continued dialogue with the Government of the United States to advance the UK’s national interest in this challenging and changing global trading environment. The deal we have agreed is the first step in delivering on the commitment made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister and President Trump in February to reach an economic deal in our respective national interests.

First and foremost, the deal will protect UK jobs, while laying the groundwork for increased transatlantic trade and investment. As the Prime Minister has commented within the last hour,

“This is jobs saved…not job done.”

To that end, I can inform the House that the deal we have secured secures reductions to the 25% tariffs imposed by the United States on the UK car industry. UK exports to the US will face a lower tariff of 10% for a quota of 100,000 vehicles. That is positive news for iconic British luxury brands such as Aston Martin, Bentley and McLaren, but it is also good news for our country’s largest vehicle manufacturer, Jaguar Land Rover, which employs 34,000 employees directly in the UK, with 135,000 further jobs in its wider supply chain. As the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders pointed out, the US is Britain’s second largest car export market. A deal like this was desperately needed to support jobs and economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic.

Furthermore, the deal secures the removal of the new tariffs the US imposed on steel and aluminium in March, through duty-free quotas. It reinforces our commitment to the steel industry, following our swift action last month to protect British Steel and its 2,500 employees.

Turning next to agriculture, for the first time ever, the deal will open up exclusive access for UK beef farmers to the US market. Currently only a few other countries, such as Australia, enjoy such access. This is a major opportunity for British farmers to increase their exports to the world’s largest consumer market, helping them to grow their businesses. Let me be clear that the import of hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken will remain illegal. The deal we have signed today will protect British farmers and uphold our high animal welfare and environmental standards. Any agricultural imports coming into the United Kingdom will have to meet our high SPS—sanitary and phytosanitary—standards.

On economic security, the deal will ensure co-operation on non-market policies from third countries, investment security and export controls. With the United States Government, we will continue to advance the UK’s national interest in key sectors where discussions continue, such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, copper, lumber and film production. We will seek the best possible deal and outcome for these vital parts of our economy, and those working on our critical infrastructure. We have also committed to further negotiations on tariff reductions to enhance the UK-US trading relationship. Without this Government’s swift action, the economic impact of US tariffs would, candidly, have been extremely severe.

Following agreement on the outline of the deal today, there will now be a process of formal negotiations with the US on a binding legal framework. The negotiations aim to deliver an ambitious set of outcomes in areas such as digital trade, tackling non-tariff barriers, agreeing mutual recognition agreements for industrial goods and an agreement on domestic services regulation, collaborating on economic security, and upholding standards in areas such as intellectual property and labour practices.

I can, of course, confirm to the House that hon. Members will have the chance to scrutinise the deal we agree with the United States Government, as well as legislation implementing the deal. To reiterate what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade have told the House, we are not seeking to change existing statutory scrutiny processes. It is vital that Parliament has the opportunity to make its voice heard on this important set of issues.

I am pleased to confirm that the Secretary of State yesterday briefed the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on progress in the negotiations. We will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments throughout the negotiations that will follow today’s announcement.

As a Government, we are grateful to businesses across the United Kingdom for their extensive and continued engagement in recent weeks, and look forward to continuing that engagement through the remaining negotiations.

I would also like to place on record the Government’s gratitude for the work of officials here in London and in Washington for their efforts in securing the first stage of this agreement today.

It will have escaped nobody’s attention in this House that this agreement with the United States has been reached on the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. That victory was secured not simply by the heroism and courage of the British armed forces, but by strong transatlantic alliances that have served us well over the eight subsequent decades. In the coming years, the Government of the United Kingdom will continue to work to secure international agreements that uphold our national interests.

For all those reasons, I commend the statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Thank you for ensuring that the House had the opportunity to hear this statement today, Mr Speaker.

Free trade betters us all. It has lifted billions from poverty and has made us the country we are today, and the country that had the ability to join the fight for Europe’s freedom 80 years ago. Unfortunately, this is not the historic free trade deal we were promised. Any reduction in tariffs is welcome, but British businesses are still facing higher tariffs now than they did in February. This is not the deal we were promised, and the Government still have much work to do.

Let us be crystal clear: it is our freedom to make our own trade policy that made even today’s deal possible. I hope the Government are now converted to our cause, and regret the 48 times they tried to take us back into the European Union. As the Government limber up for their surrender summit later this month, I ask the Minister to rule out today—once and for all—any form of dynamic alignment.

We are the only party whose position on trade with the United States has been consistent. When the Conservatives published the opportunities for a deal in 2020, the now Prime Minister said he would never countenance an agreement, the now Education Secretary called it foolish, and the now Energy Secretary said it was a spectre hanging over us.

The Conservatives do welcome the news of a reduction in selected tariffs on things like automotive exports and steel today. Any reduction is better than no reduction; jobs and investments were at risk, and all mitigation is to be welcomed. However, if I have understood the Minister correctly, we are still not back to the position as it was at the beginning of February. Perhaps he can clarify that British goods will still be more expensive in the US than they were before—for all the talk of the special relationship, that puts us in the same category as countries like Burundi and Bhutan.

More than what is in this deal today is what is not. From the little the Government have shared, it is clear that it does not go anywhere near far enough. It is a Diet Coke deal—not the real thing. It is not the comprehensive free trade agreement that a true plan for growth requires. What about the film and television industry, which was being threatened earlier this week with a 100% tariff? Can the Minister assure us now that there will be no such imposition?

What is the price of this deal? Will the Minister set out clearly to the House the trade-offs that have been made? I note with concern that two days on, we have still not had sight of the detail of the UK-India trade deal. Will the Minister confirm when we can expect to see the full detail of both deals? How does this deal defend our beef, lamb, pork and poultry farmers, with not just words, but actions? Does it protect the special status of Northern Ireland, and does it cover the British overseas territories?

In the meantime, while businesses continue to suffer and struggle with elevated US tariffs and as they face quotas and uncertainty, will the Minister finally take steps with his colleagues to ease the burden his Government chose to impose on them? Will he announce a pause of the devastating jobs tax until a full trade agreement can be concluded and stop the surge in business rates so many businesses are facing, and will he finally shelve the unemployment Bill that is already seeing British businesses cutting jobs and choking under 300 pages of incoming red tape? Lastly, will he ask the Prime Minister to sack his Energy Secretary and finally produce a real policy to cut energy prices to globally competitive levels?

If the Government are serious about helping businesses, now is the time. What we see is that once again, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.

[Mr Alexander]

Where to begin, Mr Speaker? As I sought to reflect in my statement, and as the Prime Minister remarked only a few minutes ago,

“This is jobs saved…not job done.”

It is significant that two former Conservative Prime Ministers —the former Members for Henley and for Maidenhead, as I recollect—sought and failed to deliver a US trade deal, in the same way that the former Government failed to deliver a deal with India. Important though it is to hear the views of the Opposition about trade deals that were not done, I think it is also important to hear from the Government about trade deals that have actually been done.

I am grateful, none the less, that the shadow Secretary of State found it in himself to welcome the tariff reductions that have been achieved. I think there will be relief at JLR in particular this evening that the calm, cool-headed approach taken by the Prime Minister and the negotiators has yielded a significant reduction of tariffs to a critical supply chain and a critical set of British exporters.

On Brexit, I respectfully say that this House has debated Brexit innumerable times over the years since 2016. I simply observe that we as a Government are more interested in new markets than in old arguments, and that there have been plenty of opportunities to rehearse those old arguments. I can also assure the House that, as we look ahead to the first EU-UK summit on 19 May, having delivered deals with India and the United States, we are now looking to reset that relationship with our friends, neighbours and partners in the EU, not least because three of our five largest trading partners are actually members of the European Union.

On the specific points about the film industry, we continue to negotiate on the UK’s behalf—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, seems to suggest that we can unilaterally declare the policy of the United States. Negotiations involve two parties. That is a lesson that the Conservatives could have learned when they failed to secure a US trade deal in the past. It is by listening and working together with our partners in the United States that we have been able to make progress today. As the Prime Minister said:

“This is jobs saved…not job done.”

There is further work to be done, and we fully intend to take that work forward.

On agriculture, I think it is important to say that the red line that we maintain consistently in relation to SPS measures has been protected. I am grateful to have the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs on the Front Bench with me. We have maintained those critical animal welfare standards. All of the speculation in relation to chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef has turned out to be unfounded.

It is important to recognise what was agreed today. Let me be clear to the House: this agreement will provide the United States with an initial tariff rate quota on beef of 10,000 tonnes, increasing by 1,000 tonnes per year to a cap of 13,000 tonnes. Let me put that in context for the House and for those on the Conservative Front Bench. The previous Government agreed under the UK-Australia FTA to a beef tariff rate quota of 35,000 tonnes per year, which incrementally increases to—wait for it—110,000 tonnes per year, and ultimately becomes unlimited, subject to the safeguard regime. A sense of balance, proportion and understanding is required when discussing not only the safeguards that have been maintained and protected by the British Government, but the deal that has been struck in relation to beef. We need to keep the market access granted to the United States in the context of the wider economic benefits that this deal has secured for the United Kingdom.

On the rather diminishing political points that the shadow Secretary of State sought to make in relation to domestic legislation, I can assure him that the domestic legislation and the programme of the British Government remain unchanged as a consequence of today’s landmark deal. As far as I am aware, that is also the case in relation to the membership of the Cabinet. I am very relieved to say that it is the Prime Minister who is in charge of choosing members of the Cabinet, not the Conservative party, although the shadow Secretary of State does have a distinguished record of service alongside Liz Truss in a previous Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for helping to ensure that this moment was possible. Let me add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and to His Majesty’s ambassador in Washington, Lord Mandelson, for getting this deal done. It would appear tonight that a small, common-sense retreat on duties and agriculture have unlocked a major reprieve for tens of thousands of jobs in our car and steel industry.

Will the Minister clarify for us tonight when those tariff reductions will kick in? Will he confirm that there is nothing in this bargain that compromises our ability to strike the boldest of resets with the European Union? It would be a mistake to strengthen transatlantic relationships and then short-change cross-channel possibilities. Can the Minister confirm that he will facilitate a debate in this House, if not a vote on the treaty?

On Tuesday, I will recommend to the Select Committee that we commence a full inquiry into this treaty, so that we can report back to the House, but a vote would help us understand who stands where in standing up and protecting British jobs.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in Jaguar Land Rover and the wider west midlands economy and to the diligent and demanding work he does on the Business and Trade Committee, which makes a major contribution to not only trade policy but business policy here in the United Kingdom.

To clarify the point my right hon. Friend made on the auto industry, the UK exports around 100,000 cars a year to the United States, and this quota will ensure that most manufacturers now pay the preferential rate. The agreement has removed the 25% tariff that the US applied to UK cars on 2 April. The agreement has been welcomed by the UK auto industry in the last couple of hours, including by Jaguar Land Rover, which is the largest exporter to the US. We are committed to continuing to support the automotive industry, which is a point my right hon. Friend has made powerfully in recent days.

On his second point, I can assure my right hon. Friend that notwithstanding the significant progress we have made in relation to the United States—as I said, jobs saved but job not yet done—a great deal of work is continuing on the UK-EU summit that is due to take place on 19 May. He is right to recognise the importance of twin-tracking our approach, as it were, by recognising the salience and significance of the United States as the country that is comfortably our largest single trading partner while recognising the European Union as our largest trading bloc, which covers about 46% of our trade.

Turning to the economic security aspects of the deal, I pay particular tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend, as I know this issue has been of great interest to the Business and Trade Committee. I think he will take a lot of encouragement from what emerges in the agreement, specifically in relation to export controls and investment security. One might almost think that the negotiators had been reading his Substack.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Sadly, the world has changed dramatically in the few months since Donald Trump took office in the White House. We need to reflect on the shared values we have with key countries across the world. We need to look to Canada and stand up to Trump as it has done, and we need to make sure that we build economic relationships with countries such as Canada, Australia and the countries in the European Union—all countries that share our values.

I am pleased that the Minister spoke of scrutiny, because we must ensure that there is scrutiny. We need a vote in this House on these proposals. We need to protect the NHS and ensure that we are not selling our farmers down the river. We must also ensure that there are no cuts to taxes on high-tech industries, which the US may be pushing for. Will the Minister address the matter of a vote in this House? That would be extremely helpful. Donald Trump tends to be a weathervane, and he could come back for more. I also feel for our pharmaceutical industry, so what assurances can the Minister give them?

[Mr Alexander]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. On the case he makes for seeing trade as not simply a bilateral issue but a multilateral issue, I think there is a broad consensus across the House. As well as the work we have taken forward in relation to the United States today, we continue to work with friends and partners in a range of different fora, including the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and the European Union.

On his specific question about scrutiny of trade within this House, I echo the confirmation that the Prime Minister gave in the Commons only a few days ago that we are not anticipating any change to the process of scrutiny for trade matters in the House.

On the two substantive political points, first, it is worth the House recognising that there is no change to the United Kingdom’s digital services tax as a consequence of the agreement reached today. Secondly, I know that there has been widespread concern not only on the Liberal Democrat Benches but right across the House about measures to tackle the evil of online harm, but I can confirm again there has been no change as a consequence of the agreement reached with the United States.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Minister for coming forward with his statement, but the Table Office has not received a copy of it. I am wondering where it is and when we will see copies of it. Can it be handed in so we can get it printed for Members?

Let us move on to Dame Meg Hillier.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the team at the Department as well as our team of officials under Lord Mandelson in Washington. This is a major step forward in a short time. Given how long trade agreements normally take, this is an impressive step.

However, as has been mentioned, we know that President Trump has made rattling sounds about tariffs on the film industry. The creatives and technical businesses in my constituency who contribute to our film industry are obviously nervous about that. Will the Minister reassure us that he is putting his shoulder to the wheel on this issue and not resting on his laurels on the triumphs achieved so far?

[Mr Alexander]

Mr Speaker, on your point, I apologise again for the statement not being available. As was clear from my initial remarks, there was some confusion within Government as to the best way to proceed, but I hope that through my officials we will provide it to you as a matter of immediacy.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just so that we completely understand, the Government decided they were making a statement, so there was no possibility of anything else. The House was suspended and had to resume; we could not leave it in limbo forever. The point was that there was a statement coming. Thankfully, the Minister made a statement. Hopefully, we can get copies of the statement to everyone. I was bothered about us being in danger of sending people home, saying that there was to be no statement. That was never, ever the case. I am disappointed that Members were advised to leave the building 30 minutes ago on the claim that there was to be no statement.

[Mr Alexander]

Mr Speaker, the responsibility was ours, and for that I apologise. I hope that through my officials we will be able to furnish the House with the statement that is requested.

In relation to my hon. Friend’s question, I assure her that it is not my personal style or the departmental habit to rest on laurels. It will not have passed her notice that it has been a somewhat busy few months in relation to trade policy, not least given the historic changes in the global trading environment we are experiencing on a daily basis. Notwithstanding that turbulence and the challenges in relation to trade policy, it is a matter of quiet satisfaction that we were able to get the India deal over the line earlier this week. Through that process of quiet, engaged, diligent diplomacy and a great deal of hard work by officials, negotiators and others, we have been able to secure this agreement today. But I assure her that the work goes on.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In the Trumpian philosophy that is “The Art of the Deal”, you bully your opponents and then, two months later, withdraw some of the threats, and they kneel down in adoration while they are reduced to where they were before. That is where we are.

We are celebrating the end of the second world war. Before the second world war, people could walk from Lincoln to Grimsby across derelict farms. I want a real assurance from the Minister that he will protect our beef farmers, because this is the start of an attack by America on our beef farmers.

[Mr Alexander]

As so often in the past, the Government will always act in the national interest in protecting Britain’s farmers and our food security. I would rehearse the numbers that I shared. If the right hon. Member is concerned about the volume of access to the UK market, I respectfully suggest that that might be a question for him to direct to his Conservative Front Benchers. Under the UK-Australia free trade agreement, a beef tariff quota of 35,000 tonnes a year was agreed, which increased to 110,000 tonnes after 10 years. In contrast, what has been agreed with the United States today will provide it with an initial tariff quota on beef of 10,000 tonnes, rising by 1,000 tonnes a year to a cap of 13,000 tonnes.

In relation to the right hon. Member’s observations on “The Art of the Deal”—there is a great deal of commentary on that in pretty much every newspaper at the moment—my compass tends to be “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu, rather than “The Art of the Deal.” Sun Tzu, as the right hon. Member, as a learned and wise individual, will be aware, said:

“Tactics without strategy are the noise before defeat.”

I observe that in the eight years since Brexit, the previous Government did not publish a trade strategy.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Like buses, we wait ages—years—for a trade deal with a major global partner, and then two come along at once, within a week. It is a major vote of confidence for the position of Great Britain on the global stage. With a bit of déjà vu, I commend again the Minister, the Labour Government and in particular the Prime Minister for the calm and collected manner in which they have consolidated this agreement when, by the way, others failed for years. While markets are up and tariffs are significantly down because of the announcement of this agreement, will the Minister confirm how this UK-US trade deal will benefit my Slough constituents and lead to economic growth and jobs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

As a former Secretary of State for Transport, I am always nervous as to whether buses turn up or not, but I appreciate the analogy.

It has been a busy week for the Government and for the Department for Business and Trade, but it is right to recognise that, by happy coincidence, we have seen both the India and US deals agreed within a couple of days. However, those couple of days were preceded by many months of quiet work and diplomacy, and that is why my hon. Friend is entirely right to recognise the Prime Minister’s personal contribution to the agreements, with Prime Minister Modi and now with President Trump.

After the clown show that we had witnessed in recent years and the cavalcade of chaos that we saw under previous Governments, when I saw that image of the Prime Minister sitting alongside President Trump in the Oval Office a couple of months back, I felt what I judge was a widespread sentiment among the British public, which was a sense of relief that we had a serious man in what were undoubtedly serious times. The serious man—the serious Prime Minister—has engaged in serious diplomacy to get to this agreement today, and as he recognised, with the reduction in tariffs that has been secured, not least in relation to the auto industry and the supply chain that stretches to many parts of the United Kingdom, there will be significant benefits for the United Kingdom as a result.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I welcome this deal. The politics and detail aside, it is worth acknowledging that the Prime Minister’s strategy towards the US—low-key diplomacy, mediation-led over the past few months—has led the United Kingdom to the front of the queue. In addition to Peter Mandelson, I would thank Varun Chandra, civil servants and others for getting us to this position. What practical support can the Minister provide in assistance for business and farmers in North Yorkshire to take advantage of this deal?

[Mr Alexander]

Let me pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. I noticed his tweet—I am not sure if one calls it that or X—earlier this afternoon, which reflected his question and which spoke to a wisdom, maturity and experience in recognising the British Government’s work. I genuinely appreciate the graciousness with which he made that public observation, even before doing so in the Chamber.

I echo exactly the sentiment that the right hon. Gentleman has described in relation not just to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and Ministers, but to those individuals in the British system, both in Washington and in London, who have been working pretty much flat out to try to secure an outcome to the benefit of the United Kingdom.

On the opportunities for British farmers, the right hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that, far from some of the concerns that we have heard from Members on the Front Bench, there are significant opportunities for the UK given the reciprocal character of the agreement reached today. We will work as the Department of Business and Trade with our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that British farmers are fully apprised of the opportunities that the new market access potentially offers to them.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on the second major trade deal in a matter of days? Our agricultural sector, our automotive sector and our steel sector will all be grateful. I have learned to be wary of enthusiastic posts from President Trump on the subject of trade, but this really does seem to be a win, win, win.

As my right hon. Friend said, there is more to be done and negotiations carry on. Will he confirm, as the Minister for Future Digital Economy and Online Safety did to my Select Committee, that online harms are not on the negotiating table? Can he say whether the digital services tax is on the negotiating table? Can he also say a little bit about the issues about labour practices that he mentioned in his statement?

[Mr Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend for her focus and concern, regarding both the work on online harm and the digital services tax. As I sought to reflect earlier, those remain undisturbed and unchanged by this agreement. We have listened carefully to the concerns from different parts of the House on online harms, and we have worked hard to advance the UK’s national interest in the agreement that is reached. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the significance of the move in tariffs in relation to steel and aluminium, which, again, represents a significant benefit to the foundations of the UK economy. In that sense, we worked hard in the course of this deal, not just for automotives and the supply chain, but for steel and aluminium.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

One area that is important to this country and worth billions of pounds is defence. What changes will the deal bring to the proposed defence industrial strategy for the big primes and for small and medium-sized enterprises, which this Government, and all of us, want to support?

[Mr Alexander]

Only in recent days I have been involved in discussions, notwithstanding the work we have been doing on India and the United States, in relation to the defence component of the industrial strategy. We aim to bring the industrial strategy and its defence component to the public in the coming weeks and months. A huge amount of work is happening within Government. The hon. Member is right to recognise that one of the challenges is how we can have defence procurement in the United Kingdom that does not simply reward some of our outstanding primes, but recognises that the character of modern warfare is changing, whereby we are moving from a small number of large platforms being the central feature to a large number of small platforms. We can look, for example, at drone technology in Ukraine and the transformative effect on the battlespace. We are therefore deeply mindful of the point he makes: we need to ensure, in terms of defence procurement, that we have a whole-economy effort that recognises not least the digital and technological contribution of modern warfare. Digital is a key part of the agreement we have reached today, and we will work closely with the United States to advance our shared interest.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

Thank you for making this statement possible, Mr Speaker. I welcome this statement and congratulate the Minister, the Labour Government and all our officials in the UK and US who have worked incredibly hard on this, as he says, over several months. I said in the statement on the India free trade deal earlier this week that this is in contrast to the abject failure of the Conservatives, who did not deliver any deal at all. Yesterday, the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, published a report prepared by Steve Rigby of the Rigby Group, which detailed a hit of £6.2 billion to the west midlands GDP from US automotive tariffs. The report also said that a deal within 45 days is absolutely essential, and that an imperfect deal is better than a delayed deal. Does the Minister agree that this deal is a total vindication of the Prime Minister’s approach to work in the spirit of co-operation with our partners in the USA and Europe to deliver a deal that would benefit the whole of the UK?

[Mr Alexander]

Let me first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tireless efforts in promoting the economic development of and opportunities for his constituency. I last spoke with Richard Parker only two or three weeks ago when we were together. I am fully aware—not least given his background with PwC, as I recollect—that he is deeply invested in economic development and the opportunities for the west midlands, and he has brought that commercial acumen to bear already in office. On the west midlands, perhaps the signature feature of today’s announcement will be the benefit accrued to Jaguar Land Rover, as well as to other luxury car exporters to the United States. Given the scale of Jaguar Land Rover production within the United Kingdom and the reliance on the US market, it was critical that we worked under the huge pressure of time to deliver a cut in tariffs affecting autos. In that sense, the quota agreed today and the reduction in the tariff level will be a real and meaningful benefit to JLR and its supply chain.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on this trade deal? It is an historic moment. I believe that it is in the national interest, but of course we will have to see the details, and the devil is in the detail. It appears from the statement that there are lots of details still to be worked out. I also pay tribute to Lord Mandelson, our ambassador in the United States.

The Minister mentioned managing to keep red lines around hormone-reared beef and chlorinated chicken, and of course that was mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). He also mentioned lamb—I do not think the Minister mentioned lamb—which is important to Shropshire farmers. What has not been mentioned is antibiotics in pigs. This nation eats a lot of pork. A lot of that is reared in Shropshire. Could the Minister assure Shropshire and British farmers that the pig industry in this country is still safe as a result of this deal?

[Mr Alexander]

I hope I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The SPS arrangements were, as I said, an absolute red line for the United Kingdom. We were keen, both in public and in private, to reinforce the Government’s continuing focus on upholding animal welfare standards here in the United Kingdom. In relation to his broader points about the deal, I am grateful that he has brought his experience and expertise to bear in the House in his judgment that, going by even this initial setting out of the deal, it is clearly in the national interest that we are in a position to have a quota allowing a reduced rate for the export of UK cars, for example. We would otherwise have been looking at very serious consequences for major British manufacturers. I am grateful to him for his generous words. I will ensure that Lord Mandelson, as I am now obliged to call him, is made aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s generous tributes—he is never averse to receiving compliments.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for his statement, and I wish to put on record my thanks to him, the Prime Minister and our excellent trade negotiators. The Minister has spoken a lot about tariffs so far, but might he talk about the non-tariff and non-quota trade barriers to further economic development between the United Kingdom and the United States, and about where we will go in the ongoing negotiations?

[Mr Alexander]

It has been a feature of the last few months, since the President was elected, that people have thought that trade policy and tariffs are synonymous. My hon. Friend is exactly right to recognise that a growing proportion of trade is conducted electronically. The UK is an almost 81% services-based economy. We therefore have a huge interest in non-tariffs barriers—not just barriers at the border but barriers behind the border. That is an area of focus in the agreement, and one that will require further work, as is appropriate and right. We were working under huge time pressure to address the tariff issue, for the reasons I have set out, but he is entirely right to recognise that we will take forward an ambitious agenda on non-tariff barriers.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Although a reduction in tariffs is welcome, the past four months have shown the UK Government that President Trump is an unreliable partner, not just in trade but in defence and security, climate and the international rule of law. In contrast, closer relations with our trusted allies in the EU have never been more important. Given that Trump has previously described the EU as “a foe”, “very nasty” and “an atrocity”, will the Minister provide an unequivocal assurance that there are no conditions whatsoever attached to the deal that will constrain the UK’s relationship with the EU, which is the UK’s largest trading partner?

[Mr Alexander]

I can do no better than refer to the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech towards the end of last year, when he said clearly that we do not want to have to choose between our friends and allies—between dealing and working constructively with the European Union and with the United States.

On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, it is important to recognise that the United States is our deepest and strongest defence ally. For the past 80 years—we should remember the day on which we are gathering—the United Kingdom has worked hand in glove with the armed forces of the United States to keep the world safe. I saw for myself, in previous conflicts such as Afghanistan, the extraordinary heroism and courage that American service personnel brought to bear alongside British personnel, so it is right to recognise that, as well as taking forward this economic agreement, there is a strong and enduring security foundation to the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. All that said, of course we stand ready to work with the European Union as we look ahead to the UK-EU summit on 19 May.

The hon. Gentleman asks whether there are any conditions. The single biggest concern expressed by many commentators related to SPS, given that that was one of the key agricultural areas on which the previous Government foundered in their negotiations with the first Trump Administration. That was a red line for us in these negotiations—a red line that I am glad to say we have protected.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister, the Prime Minister, Lord Mandelson and all involved in this work for getting the deal over the line. Unlike some Opposition Members, who seem intent on talking down the Government’s positive work and our country, I find the deal really positive. Does the Minister agree that this trade deal, the one with India and the fall in interest rates announced by the Bank of England are positive signs that the Government’s plan for change is working and will start to benefit people in my constituency and across the country?

[Mr Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous roll-call of honour. It would probably do my career prospects in the Department for Business and Trade some benefit if I added the Secretary of State to his roll-call of Lord Mandelson and the Prime Minister.

Of course, the latest cut in interest rates from the Bank of England will be welcomed by hard-pressed families seeking to make their mortgage payments in communities right across the country. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has commented on today’s US agreement that it is

“jobs saved…not job done.”

The work goes on in relation to sorting out the fiscal mess that we inherited and raising the trend rate of growth, but I hope that both the US deal today and the cut in interest rates will be welcomed in all parts of the House and the country.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister will agree that the economic landscape has changed dramatically since 26 March: we have had the trade deal with India, we have had today’s pact with the United States, the Employment Rights Bill will come into law later this year, and there is much more besides. In the interests of transparency to this House, and indeed to the country, will he request a summer forecast update from the Office for Budget Responsibility that incorporates all the latest updates and let us know what the public finance impacts will be?

[Mr Alexander]

As a mere Minister of Trade, I am not sure the Treasury would look kindly on me telling the OBR when to update its forecasts. I am a Trade Minister, not a Treasury Minister, but I have noted the hon. Lady’s observation. She is entirely right that the economic landscape has changed. It is right to recognise that many of the promises that were made in the past about us seeing major trading blocs bringing barriers down have been set aside in recent months and years, and we are seeing major trading blocs putting barriers up. That is why today’s deal is so significant.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister and this Labour Government on achieving not just one trade deal but two historic deals in the space of a week. I am a vegetarian, but many of my constituents like nothing better than a chicken curry on the streets of Southall Broadway. Can the Minister categorically assure the House that this deal will protect our British food standards and, in particular, that chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef will remain illegal in this country?

[Mr Alexander]

First, I am grateful for the catch-all congratulations to the whole Government; it is a sentiment I heartily endorse, and I will ensure it is heard by other colleagues. In relation to my hon. Friend’s substantive point, I can assure her that curries are not just a favourite in Ealing Southall; in most of our major metropolitan cities, there is nothing quite as British as a chicken tikka masala. That is a huge tribute to the 1.9 million people of Indian heritage who live in the United Kingdom and the immense contribution they have made over the decades not just to our cuisine, but to our country. She raises a really important point in relation to chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef. There was a lot of genuine concern before this agreement was reached today, and I can give the House the assurance she is seeking that there is nothing in this deal that compromises the safety standards of either poultry or beef. We were clear that that was a red line, and we have delivered on that red line.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. There has been a great deal of reassurance for the car industry and agriculture, but there has been no mention of the Scotch whisky industry or the drink and food industry in general. In Edinburgh, as in much of Scotland, that is a huge concern. Should we expect details next week, or are there assurances he can give us now?

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Lady is entirely right to raise the importance of the Scotch whisky industry, and I say that as a Member with a constituency interest: I have the Glenkinchie distillery in my East Lothian constituency, which I am delighted to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer visited this week, in the light of the deal that was struck with India.

In relation to this deal with the United States, it is right to recognise that further work and negotiations will continue, not least in relation to some of the broader sectors that it does not cover. It is also right to recognise, in this week of all weeks, the extraordinary significance of the Indian trade deal that was struck for the Scotch Whisky Association. Members need not take my word for it; they can look at the words of the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, who described in glowing terms the significance of the Indian market and the precipitate decline in the tariffs that we have secured in that deal. We have more to do, but broadly this has been recognised as a very significant and positive week not just for Scottish whisky, but for Scottish salmon and, I am delighted to say, Irn-Bru, which will also benefit from access to the Indian market.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

In the Vatican, in the last hour, the cardinals have elected a new Pope; and we wish the new Holy Father well, and give thanks for the life of Pope Francis. Of course, we send our best wishes to the Catholic community in Newcastle-under-Lyme and up and down our United Kingdom.

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the confirmation that he has given several times to colleagues that imports of hormone-treated beef and chlorinated chicken will remain illegal under this deal. That is good news, and important for my farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme and farmers up and down the country. Will the Minister expand a little further on what exact engagement took place with farmers and their representatives before this deal was agreed, and what support will be pledged to farmers now, because that is important to my farmers and those up and down the country?

[Mr Alexander]

I fully appreciate my hon. Friend’s observations. I was unaware on arriving in the Chamber that a successor to Pope Francis, who is greatly grieved and missed on both sides of the House, has now been announced, and of course we wish the new pontiff well in the spiritual leadership that role will require—and I say that as a proud Presbyterian and member of the Church of Scotland.

On the broader point about engagement with farmers, I also have a farming constituency, and I was on a farm in east Lothian only last Friday, hearing directly from farmers about the impact of the market challenges faced by farmers not just here but internationally. Through our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, there is a lot of engagement regularly with farmers. Naturally and appropriately, that Department was involved in the cross-Whitehall processes that led to the negotiators being able to reach agreement today, and I fully anticipate further opportunities for dialogue with farmers in the future.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

We have had huge amounts of tariffs put on the UK, and then a trade deal to reduce them; there have been positive impacts on some industries, and potentially negative impacts on others. Today’s announcement of a UK-US trade deal has therefore given rise to more questions than answers. On one side, we have US officials hailing the deal as “dramatically increasing” access to the UK agricultural market, which I am sure will ring alarm bells for many. On the other side, we have the UK Government claiming that the agreement is balanced and fair. First, will the Minister categorially confirm that no reductions to UK food standards, environmental protections—which have not been mentioned yet—and animal welfare rules have been conceded in this agreement? Secondly, what is the true impact of the tariff arrangements on British farmers and growers? We have heard vague claims of reciprocal access, but have the Government conducted any assessment of the economic impact for UK farmers, their practices and their opportunities?

[Mr Alexander]

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and early on he mentioned a trade deal to reduce tariffs; that is exactly the deal we have sought to secure and have secured today. He is right to recognise that there are continuing challenges, not just for the UK but for many countries, in relation to protectionism and higher tariff rates, but today represents significant progress on the terms, as I have described. On animal welfare and food standards, I reassure him about everything I have said on sanitary and phytosanitary measures; we made that a red line and were very clear about it, and were unwilling to compromise. I also assure him that there is nothing vague about the reciprocity I described in terms of the opportunities for beef farmers.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation that this deal will not in any way undermine the nation’s SPS rules and regulations, but I am sure that he will acknowledge that there will be a degree of nervousness among British and indeed Welsh farmers, especially beef farmers, for although the tariff rate quota agreed is modest compared with that agreed under the New Zealand and Australia trade deals, it does of course come as an addition, and farmers will be worried about the cumulative impact. I think the Minister has mentioned this, but will he confirm that the 13,000 tonnes represents the maximum tariff quota for beef that has been agreed, and has any tariff quota been agreed for lamb, pork and poultry?

[Mr Alexander]

Forgive me: I was shuffling through my papers and missed the hon. Gentleman’s final point, but I am happy to write to him. He is absolutely right, I can assure him, to recognise that compared to the tariff quotas agreed under the Australia deal, negotiated by the then Prime Minister, the former Member for Henley, there is much more proportionality—a much more modest increase—anticipated under the quota in the agreement reached today. I recognise his point that there are continuing challenges for farmers in the United Kingdom, and we will continue to seek to address those.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s clarification on chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef, but will there be protections in place for egg products? Hens raised in battery cages are illegal in this country, but not elsewhere in the world, so will it be illegal to import egg products from hens raised in those poor conditions elsewhere?

[Mr Alexander]

We have not compromised our animal welfare standards in any aspect of what we have agreed on behalf of the United Kingdom today.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for dragging the Minister to the House tonight to explain the terms of the deal. After hammering farms with the family farm tax, it now looks like Labour is selling our farmers down the river, allowing cheap, low-quality imports from the United States. President Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture has said:

“This deal puts our great American Agricultural Producers FIRST!”

Is she wrong?

[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.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I hope that the Minister will recognise why UK farmers might raise an eyebrow at the assurances that he has given to the House. They have been let down time and again since July through this Government’s policies on the family farm tax, the sustainable farming incentive, double cab pick-ups and fertiliser tax—the list goes on and on. Brooke Rollins, the US Secretary of Agriculture, said after the deal was announced that

“it can’t be understated…how important this deal is”

for American farmers, and that it will “exponentially increase” US beef exports to the UK. The Minister will understand why that raises concerns for our farmers. Will he assure farmers up and down the country that in any further trade negotiations with the US, their interests, livelihoods and futures will not be on the table?

[Mr Alexander]

It would be remiss of me not to start my answer to the hon. Lady with anything other than humble congratulations on her time in the London marathon. Having run it twice, I would have seen her at the starting line, but that would have been the last time I saw her. It was a minor consolation to me that my time was somewhat faster than that of the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). All that being said, she makes a serious point about British farmers. I assure her that the interests of British farmers, rural Britain and the wider agricultural sector is a constant feature of our thinking in Government.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Despite the reassurances from the Minister, many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton will feel really anxious about being thrown under a bus yet again as a result of this trade deal, especially after the trade deals agreed by former Conservative Governments with Australia and New Zealand, which undermined British farmers and food standards. Can the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that this deal with the US will not undermine British farmers? What measures will he put in place to ensure that low-quality, low-welfare products do not enter the UK?

[Mr Alexander]

I reiterate the points that I sought to make earlier. Imports of hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken will remain illegal. The deal we have signed today will protect British farmers and uphold our high standards of welfare and environmental standards. Any agricultural imports coming into the United Kingdom will have to meet our high and continuing SPS standards. I can put it no more clearly than that.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

East Hampshire farmers will be relieved to hear what the Minister has said about food standards, including on hormone-treated beef and chlorinated chicken, after everything that has happened to them in the last period. Obviously we will have to see the detail, and see what else is in the agreement.

I will ask about online safety. The Minister has said already that there has been no change to the digital services tax and no rowing back on the online safety regulatory regime. Can he confirm that no commitments have been made that would curtail the freedom of this House to make further changes in this area?

[Mr Alexander]

On today of all days, I will not suggest that there should be any fetters or constraints whatsoever on this House when it comes to introducing legislation on online harm, or any other issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say that I never want to be put in this position again? I remind people that before we send Members home, we ought to think to tell them that there will not be a statement. I think that was bad. The Chair of the Select Committee complained to me, because he was told to go away. We should not be doing this. In this House, we need to work together. This House should be respected. I will stand up for the Back Benchers. Please never put me in this position again.

On behalf of this House and all the Roman Catholics across the United Kingdom, particularly in Chorley and Lancashire, I wish the new pope well.

Adjournment

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Keir Mather.)

Trade Negotiations

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

I wish to make a statement on the progress that this Government have made towards a UK-India trade deal. I am delighted to inform the House that we have now concluded negotiations on a comprehensive, modern agreement with the fastest-growing economy in the G20.

Hon. Members will no doubt be aware that India is expected to be the third-largest economy in the world by 2028. By the end of this decade, it will be home to an estimated 60 million middle-class consumers, and with trade between the United Kingdom and India already standing at north of £43 billion, we know that this powerhouse economy is and will remain a hugely important market for British businesses. While past Governments have failed to negotiate a deal with India, this Government have today succeeded. We have brokered the most generous trade deal ever agreed by India in its history.

From day one of this deal coming into force, it will make trade between our countries cheaper, easier and quicker. UK exporters will benefit from much lower tariffs across a whole host of sectors, including those that we are prioritising in our industrial strategy. It means simplified customs processes for businesses in advanced manufacturing and aerospace, in the food and beverage sector, and in the creative sector, which will benefit from improved copyright protection.

For our world-leading financial and professional services companies, this deal locks in access to India’s fast-growing market. It will ensure that UK banks and finance companies are placed on an equal footing with Indian suppliers, and it encourages the recognition of professional qualifications, so that UK and Indian firms can access the right talent at the right time, whether they are in Mumbai or Manchester. This deal will unlock new opportunities for businesses in every part of the United Kingdom, including our advanced manufacturing companies in the north-east, our iconic Scottish whisky brands and our car plants in the west midlands. In all, we will have secured over £400 million in tariff reductions in the first year alone, doubling to around £900 million after just 10 years.

Crucially, the deal we have negotiated will provide bespoke support for small and medium-sized enterprises to enter the Indian market, alongside a firm commitment from India to address the trade barriers that those businesses face. Since taking office, we have committed to hardwiring the views and interests of small businesses into everything we do, and the deal we have negotiated is evidence of that. For the very first time, British businesses will have guaranteed access to India’s vast procurement market, covering goods, services and construction. They will be able to bid for approximately 40,000 tenders worth at least £38 billion a year.

The deal that we have just got over the line is further proof that this Government are using the power of international trade and investment to raise living standards here at home. Indeed, experts predict that it will boost our bilateral trade by some £25.5 billion. It is also projected to increase UK wages by £2.2 billion each year, while adding nearly £5 billion to our GDP over the long run.

We have done all that while defending stoutly the UK’s national interest. We have brokered a deal that protects our NHS and upholds our high food standards. It ensures that our points-based immigration system remains unaffected. The deal demonstrates our commitment to both workers and businesses, staying true to our Labour values while contributing to our primary mission of economic growth.

I recognise that this House will need time to scrutinise the deal before the ratification process. My Department will follow the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in sharing the finalised treaty text with hon. Members. The House will, of course, have the opportunity to scrutinise any legislation associated with its implementation.

This deal sends a powerful message about the UK and India’s shared commitment to free, fair and open trade. The UK-India relationship has deep, enduring roots, exemplified by the living bridge of 1.9 million people of Indian heritage living in the United Kingdom. While I do not personally lament that the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) is no longer the UK’s Prime Minister, it would be wholly wrong of me not to acknowledge his significant achievement as the first British-Indian Prime Minister, which is a testament not just to his own ability but to the close bonds that unite our two nations.

The Government are proud to back open markets and free trade. We recognise that Britain has always been an open, outward-looking trading nation, and we believe that open markets and free trade are fundamental building blocks with which the UK can secure its opportunities and prosperity at home and abroad. Through our upcoming trade strategy, we will set out our ambitions to engage with more industrial giants, like India, to ramp up trade and investment over the coming months and years.

Today, though, as close trading partners and as friends, I am proud that we have secured this deal with India. It is a deal that affords UK businesses certainty and stability during a time of global uncertainty and instability, and a deal that will give British businesses access to one of our biggest markets abroad, while raising wages and driving growth here at home. That is what this deal delivers, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I thank the hon. Lady for her recognition that this is a landmark deal, although I have to say that it was not her most generous welcome of a deal that the previous Government worked for many months to try to secure—it is right to recognise that, albeit they did not manage to close the most difficult remaining issues. I seem to remember that it was a former leader of the Conservative party, the former Member for Witney, who promised that his party would stop “banging on about Europe”. Alas, that advice does not seem to have been taken in the Conservatives’ approach to today’s landmark agreement with India.

The hon. Lady inquired how we got the deal done when our predecessors failed to do so. Respectfully, I would say that it was through a process of patient, pragmatic and painstaking work—a very different approach from the kind of Instagram diplomacy that all too often characterised the approach of past Trade Secretaries and Trade Ministers. That allowed us, with the political leadership shown by the Secretary of State, to close significant chapters on goods and services. It allowed us to then reach a considered judgment that meant that, with stability of political leadership and clarity of ministerial direction, we could secure concessions from the Indians and conclude the agreement in a way that eluded our predecessors.

The hon. Lady asked specifically about the double contribution convention. I can assure her that that reciprocal agreement will benefit UK workers and their employers as the opportunity within India expands. India will have one of the world’s largest middle classes in the coming decades. The agreement will cover only a specific and limited group of Indian businesspeople for a period of three years. It is worth recognising that the Indians have other arrangements in place that extend longer than that. The workers will be required to pay their immigration health surcharge to the national health service, so the convention does not affect NHS funding.

The DCC that we have agreed is reciprocal and will benefit UK workers in India as well. India is home to the fastest growth rate in the G20, so the opportunity here for the United Kingdom is only likely to grow over time. The agreement was made in the context of the wider deal, which will bring billions into the UK economy. I can assure the hon. Lady that the United Kingdom already has social security agreements in place with a range of countries and trading blocs, including the European Union and the United States.

On the broader immigration issue that the hon. Lady raised, I can assure her that the deal does not affect the points-based system. The points-based system is not affected by the agreement that we struck today. The deal only covers business mobility, which is different from immigration, as it is about travel for specific and temporary business purposes. As a result, UK businesses will benefit from additional business mobility routes supporting them as they expand into India. Student visas remained off the table.

I hope that that gives some clarity to the hon. Lady. I am grateful for her recognition that it is a landmark deal. It is right to recognise that the Conservatives sought to secure this deal, and I hope that in the course of the conversations that we will have across this Dispatch Box today, we will be able to recognise that this represents a very significant win for the United Kingdom in very challenging times for trade.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

The conclusion of the negotiations on this free trade agreement is a major win for Scotland’s economy and for my Livingston constituency in particular, given that we bottle Glenmorangie whisky and bake Paterson’s shortbread. We also have a strong and growing digital services sector, particularly with small and medium-sized enterprises. Can the Minister say a bit more about how this deal will help those businesses, too?

[Mr Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Scottish Member of Parliament. One of the commitments that we made when we were both elected—in my case, re-elected—to the House back in July was that we would seek to ensure a Labour Government delivering for Scotland. The cut that we have secured in whisky tariffs for the huge and significant market in India is a clear and tangible example of the difference we are making. He does not need to take my word for it. These are the words of Mark Kent, the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association:

“The UK-India free trade agreement is a once in a generation deal and a landmark moment for Scotch Whisky exports to the world’s largest whisky market. It shows that the UK government is making significant progress towards achieving its growth mission, and the Scotch Whisky industry looks forward to working with the UK and Indian governments in the months ahead to implement the deal”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. At a time when Donald Trump is fuelling global instability through protectionism, international co-operation is more important than ever. A UK-India trade deal is a positive step, and we look forward to seeing the detail of the deal. Parliament must be able to scrutinise the details carefully, especially the proposed changes to national insurance contributions. When Labour was in opposition, it agreed with the Liberal Democrats that there should be a vote on trade deals. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and I have made the Lib Dem position clear: there should be proper scrutiny and a vote on a trade deal.

The Government’s own export Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), said that the current ratification process is “not fit for purpose”, and he is right. Does the Minister of State agree that denying a vote not only contradicts Labour party policy, but sets a dangerous precedent, especially ahead of any future US deal? Can he explain the Government’s massive U-turn since entering government? Finally, will the Government push for a new UK-EU customs union—the fastest way to boost our economy—at this month’s political summit?

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman has referred to our attempt to reset our trading relationship with Europe. The red lines that were set out in our manifesto are very clear, but within those red lines we are endeavouring to broaden and deepen an important trading relationship that represents about 46% of the UK’s trade. As for the hon. Gentleman’s broader observation that the agreement we have reached today is, as it were, a pretty bright-shining light in what is a somewhat dark sky for international trade, I agree with him. It is, hopefully, a sign of further deals to come and of a commitment to taking forward deals that are mutually beneficial, in this case for the Indians and also for the United Kingdom.

When it comes to the wider question of how the deal will be scrutinised, the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that today’s telephone conversation with Prime Minister Modi was just the start of the process. A press release has been published, along with a list of the top benefits, but we hope to publish a paper today setting out in more detail what has been agreed—the conclusion summary paper—and there will then be a process moving towards signature and a legal scrub of the text. However, as the Prime Minister made clear a few days ago, we will follow the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Last week I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry when they came here with my old friend Piyush Goyal. I congratulate the Minister and his officials, as well as FICCI and the India Global Forum—under the leadership of Manoj Ladwa—and, indeed, everyone who has spent so many years laying the groundwork for this agreement.

The Minister recognised the doubling of India’s service and IT exports over the last decade and the benefits that we can gain from engagement and co-operation in respect of the service and knowledge economy, but I think it important for him to outline further what the benefits of the double contribution convention on national insurance will be, and how they will facilitate that engagement and co-operation for our workers in India.

[Mr Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous words of congratulation. I know that the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and India has been a constant feature of his long service in the House, and a particular focus of his parliamentary work. He is right to recognise, in the context of both digital services and the services sector more widely, the huge potential mutual benefits for the United Kingdom and for India working together, and he is right to recognise the broad and deep relationship between our two countries—as I have said, 1.9 million people with Indian heritage live in the United Kingdom—but, as his question suggested, it is also right to recognise quite how dynamic the Indian economy is today. It has the highest growth rate in the G20, which is expected to remain above 6% over at least the next five years. Given that ours is a largely services-based economy, notwithstanding our excellence in advanced manufacturing, the opportunities for UK service exporters are huge and growing.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I welcome the Indian trade deal, but will the Minister now switch his attention to the other side of the Atlantic, and ask Lord Mandelson to explain to the United States Administration that tariffs on films are unworkable and impossible to implement, and would do real damage to the film industry not just in the UK but in the United States?

[Mr Alexander]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s long-standing interest in matters relating to culture, media and sport and to the creative industries more generally. We are grateful for the expertise and experience that he brings to the House on these issues.

It would be one of the first occasions on which I told Lord Mandelson to do anything in many decades of our working together, but I will ensure that that is duly registered, not only in the record of this House but directly to our distinguished ambassador in Washington. It should also be placed on record that the film sector is a key part of the UK’s world-class creative industries—and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that those sectors continue to thrive and create good jobs—and that the UK has a strong and balanced trading relationship with the United States, worth £315 billion.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his challenge to me to reach out directly to Lord Mandelson in respect of what we have read in the newspapers in the last couple of days, and I give him my word that I will ensure that Lord Mandelson is fully aware of the issue.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Amid much fanfare as usual, the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, announced that he would have a UK-India trade deal signed “by Diwali”—but very cunningly, he never mentioned which Diwali, so we were left waiting for years. Other Conservative Prime Ministers made similarly empty promises, which is why I particularly commend the Minister, the Business and Trade Secretary, their officials and the Labour Government for having finally concluded this free trade agreement. I look forward to this mutually beneficial agreement being formally signed. Can the Minister confirm that this landmark UK-India FTA will increase bilateral trade by £26 billion, increase UK GDP by £4.8 billion, boost wages by £2 billion year in, year out, and lead to many jobs in my Slough constituency and for people across both nations?

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend seems to know my brief better than I do. In all seriousness, it is right to place on record our gratitude to the Prime Minister for his sterling work in getting this deal over the line. I also pay generous tribute to the Business and Trade Secretary, who has done an immense amount of work and whose visit to India in February with Minister Goyal unlocked a number of key issues that had proved to be sticking points for the previous Administration, and to officials at the Department for Business and Trade—both in London and, indeed, in India—who have worked tirelessly to secure this deal.

On its economic significance, I concur with the point that India is a huge and dynamic economy, but it is also right to recognise that we signed the right deal for the United Kingdom. This is the best deal that India has ever agreed to. It is expected to increase bilateral trade by about £25.5 billion and raise UK GDP, but we have managed to secure a deal more timeously than was anticipated and, frankly, we got a better deal than many expected.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The Indian Government have said that this deal will mean that

“immense opportunities for talented and skilled Indian youth will open up in the UK.”

Will the Minister please confirm that we have not signed a youth mobility scheme with India before his Government have agreed to one with the EU? He said that we have contribution agreements with the EU and the USA, but my understanding is that we have signed double contribution conventions with only Chile, Japan and South Korea. Could he please clarify that?

[Mr Alexander]

What I said was that we have social security agreements with a range of countries, including the USA and with the EU. The hon. Lady asks whether a new points-based system is being introduced, and I can assure her that that is not the case. The deal covers only business mobility, and the UK has not given away visas or created new routes. Existing business mobility routes have been expanded for highly skilled and experienced professionals to cover additional sectors, but to qualify for these routes professionals must demonstrate that they meet the strict criteria for professional experience and qualifications.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that by securing the best deal that India has ever agreed, the Government have put UK businesses in an incredible position to take advantage of the rapidly growing economy?

[Mr Alexander]

India is quite simply the fastest growing economy in the G20, and is expected to be the third largest economy in the world by 2028. If we were choosing countries that we would wish to do deals with, India would be pretty high up the list. By 2030, India will be home to an estimated 60 million middle-class consumers, whose numbers are projected to grow to a quarter of a billion by 2050, and the demand for imports is on course to top £1.4 trillion by 2035.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

For those of us who have Scotch whisky industry interests in our constituency, it is very welcome news that apparently globalisation is not dead after all. The Minister speaks about this being a deal that opens doors, but what assistance will be given to British companies, especially SMEs, to ensure that they are able to maximise the benefits they can derive from trading in this very important market?

[Mr Alexander]

As my statement sought to make clear, there will be specific provision for SMEs as part of this deal, because we recognise that the huge Indian market can often be a challenge for businesses that do not have the capabilities of larger businesses.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous words about the Scotch whisky industry. From the quotes that we are receiving this afternoon from Diageo, Chivas and the Scotch Whisky Association, he is very much on all fours with the industry in recognising that this is a quite extraordinary deal for Scotch whisky.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on securing the UK’s largest trade deal with the G20’s fastest growing economy. The Indian high commission recently appointed Newcastle’s very first honorary consul general, and we will have much to discuss when we meet, because there is so much in this deal to look at and scrutinise. I thank the Minister for specifically mentioning advanced manufacturing in the north-east as well as small and medium-sized businesses everywhere. Could he say a little more about how small businesses in the north-east can secure and access the opportunities brought forward by this deal? I am thinking particularly of our fantastic digital sector and our great health sector.

[Mr Alexander]

For both the digital sector and the healthcare sector, the deal offers significant opportunities in a huge and expanding market in India. It will deliver a degree of certainty as well as significant tariff reductions across a range of sectors, and it also affords us the opportunity to think long-term. We want to support the advanced manufacturers with which my hon. Friend is very familiar in the north-east of England to be able to make strategic investments in exporting to the Indian market. They will be investing in exporting not just to a large but to a growing market, and one that holds significant commercial opportunities for the decades ahead.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Just a few weeks ago, the Business and Trade Secretary said that he would

“stand up for British workers”,

so it is quite astonishing that the Minister has come to the House today to announce tax breaks for immigration. This will undercut workers in Scotland and across the UK, and it comes just weeks after Labour introduced its own tax on UK workers. It leaves us all wondering: do this Labour Government ever back British workers?

[Mr Alexander]

Let me name some Scottish workers who are absolutely delighted by today’s announcement. Let me quote directly what Chivas has said:

“The announcement of a free trade agreement in principle between the UK and India is a welcome boost for Chivas Brothers during an uncertain global economic environment. India is the world’s biggest whisky market by volume and greater access will be a game changer for the export of our Scotch whisky brands, such as Chivas Regal and Ballantine’s.”

Whether it is Chivas Regal, Ballantine’s or other Scottish brands, which are the product of a huge number of workers in Scotland, there is much to celebrate today.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and I congratulate him, this Labour Government and officials on negotiating the trade deal, particularly given the Conservative party’s abject failure in this regard. When it comes to our business communities in the UK, we have strong values in relation to workers’ rights, human rights, consumer protections and environmental sustainability, so can the Minister outline how this deal will respect and enhance those values?

[Mr Alexander]

I can indeed. I said that this is a modern, forward-looking agreement, and that is why there is a recognition in the deal of exactly the values my hon. Friend mentions. That represents a first for India in many cases, it reflects the fact that we were determined to secure that as part of the negotiations, and it is one of the many reasons we are proud of the agreement announced today.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Today’s trade deal announcement will be welcomed by many in Scotland, not least those in the whisky industry. In the face of volatile US tariffs, this is undoubtedly good news. However, there has been increasing pressure in the UK—even from the former Prime Minister Tony Blair—for the Government to abandon their net zero ambitions. I understand that carbon mechanisms were crucial in these trade negotiations with India. Given that the SNP Government have today reaffirmed their fullest commitment to net zero and sustainable industries, can the Minister give his reassurance that the UK Government’s climate ambitions have not been sacrificed to secure this deal?

[Mr Alexander]

I can give the House that assurance. I thought we were going to have an uncharacteristically warm endorsement from the hon. Gentleman until he got to the word “however”. I have to say, we have been so busy negotiating a trade deal with India that we have not had the chance to read the First Minister’s “Programme for Government” today. In the spirit of generosity, he pays tribute to the work that has been done on whisky, and I will read out the statement by Debra Crew, the Diageo chief executive, who said:

“The UK-India Free Trade Agreement is a huge achievement by Prime Ministers Modi and Starmer and Ministers Goyal and Reynolds, and all of us at Diageo toast their success. It will be transformational for Scotch and Scotland, while powering jobs and investment in both India and the UK.”

I could not have put it better myself.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

As has already been said, negotiating a trade deal on beneficial terms is hugely significant, particularly with regard to the recent trade war initiated by Trump. However, I have come to this House countless times to raise the issue of human rights violations and abuses against the Kashmiris by the Indian Government, and I will do so again today. Can the Minister tell me whether the persecution of Kashmiri journalists and human rights activists has been raised at any point during these negotiations, and whether he will return to this House, before he signs on the dotted line in a few months, with a full response detailing exactly how the UK Government are upholding their international human rights obligations, and not undermining efforts to defend Kashmiri human rights?

[Mr Alexander]

The United Kingdom is a leading advocate for human rights around the world, and we remain committed to the promotion of universal human rights. When we have concerns, they are raised directly with partner Governments, including at ministerial level. The horrific recent terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir was utterly devastating, and my thoughts remain with the victims, their loved ones and the people of India. It is, however, for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution and resolution to the Kashmir dispute, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Today’s news of a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and India is wonderful—some of us have argued for greater free trade arrangements with Commonwealth countries for many years. Mr Modi, the Prime Minister of India, should be commended for adopting a free-market system that has brought wealth and prosperity to India, eliminating poverty and enabling India to work with countries like the United Kingdom. Will the Minister accept that none of this would have been possible had we not been sovereign and able to negotiate our own free trade agreements following our departure from the European Union? Was Brexit not the right thing to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

First, it is right to recognise that the hon. Gentleman has form on arguing for the importance of the Commonwealth; I seem to recollect answering parliamentary questions in recent weeks on exactly the opportunity for doing effective economic work together that is provided by the Commonwealth and the fellowship of friendship that it presents us. On that, we are on all fours, and I certainly agree that we should look to strengthen and broaden our trading ties where we can. His point about Europe is a well-ploughed field in this House and elsewhere, and it seems to me that we should be looking forward and looking for new markets rather than engaging in old arguments.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome today’s important announcement, and in particular the benefits it will bring to the UK economy, with the billions of pounds of extra growth it will generate in both the food and drink and advanced manufacturing sectors, as well as in many other parts of our economy. Will the Minister elaborate a little on the benefits to the UK tech sector, and in particular to start-ups, such as the many in my constituency, and to the young entrepreneurs setting up their own small businesses?

[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.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I welcome the conclusion of negotiations on what is the best deal that India has offered any country when it comes to free trade. Many of my constituents are part of the living bridge of 1.9 million people of Indian heritage living in and contributing to this country. Can the Minister, at a time of global volatility, set out how Labour’s free trade deal gives the world-renowned clothing and food businesses in Southall the confidence to grow and expand, thereby boosting our local economy?

[Mr Alexander]

It is right to recognise that both producers and consumers stand to benefit in relation not just to whisky, but on a range of consumer goods. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituents in Southall and the extraordinary contribution that they have made as part of that living bridge over many decades here in the United Kingdom. The commercial opportunities in both directions are significant, which is why, I think, we were able to secure the deal today.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I welcome this trade deal with a global titan that will be in place for the decades ahead. It has been made possible by Brexit and by the hard work of the previous Government. However, the Minister will be aware that this country runs a very substantial trade deficit with India. Is the deal that he has negotiated likely to narrow or widen that deficit, because all we know about the tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers and trade-offs that are implicit in the deal is what we read about in the press or are told about by the Indian Government?

[Mr Alexander]

It is for the Indian Government to account for this trade deal in the terms that they so choose. We will follow the established constitutional process of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 whereby not only are we sharing a statement with the House at the earliest opportunity, but the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise the details of every aspect of this agreement.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

As somebody who represents a constituency with a proud community of people of Indian heritage, with world-beating firms, a skilled workforce, and a catapult centre at the Manufacturing Technology Centre, I would like to ask the Minister to expand on how this deal will help deliver growth, economic development and innovation right across the country, and opportunities for businesses, small medium and large?

[Mr Alexander]

We have spoken today of the importance of the Indian market, but it is also right to recognise that the Indian market presently sits behind some of the world’s highest barriers to trade, notwithstanding the fact that it was the UK’s 12th largest trading partner. The fact that we are tearing down so many of those tariff levels as part of this agreement will be a very practical and pragmatic offering for the kind of excellence in manufacturing that he has in his constituency and that is represented across our country.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

How can the Government make a trade deal for the whole of the United Kingdom if they do not control the trade laws for the whole of the United Kingdom? Northern Ireland is still under the control of EU trade laws. To give a practical illustration of the problem, under the UK-India trade deal any imports to Northern Ireland from India—I speak of imports, not exports—will be subject not to any agreed UK tariff but to whatever prevailing EU tariff there is on those goods, and the EU does not have a trade deal with India. Is this not another illustration of how Northern Ireland has been left behind by a protocol that has left us still in the EU?

[Mr Alexander]

The Northern Ireland’s trading relationships and its status within the United Kingdom are not altered as a consequence of the Indian free trade agreement that was reached today. The established position is exactly as the right hon. Member describes and recognises the distinctive history and significance of the Good Friday agreement—not just in the protocol but the Windsor framework. A huge amount of work has been put in by both sides of the House to try to maintain a hard-won peace in Northern Ireland, and that is not compromised by today’s agreement.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

As other Scottish MPs have mentioned, this deal is good news for the whisky industry. It means, “Uisge beatha gu leòr”—whisky galore. It is also good for food producers, such as crofters in the Western Isles, whose exports of lamb products now face zero tariffs, and the salmon farming industry, which supports 420 jobs in my constituency and accounts for £187 million of trade. It is good news overall. I guess the only question is whether the Minister will be toasting this deal with a single malt Hearach from the Isle of Harris Distillery or one from Uist, Benbecula or Barra—a chain of new distilleries that now have a new export market thanks to this deal.

[Mr Alexander]

I think it was Tip O’Neill, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, who said “All politics is local”, so if I am going to be toasting tonight’s deal, it will be with the finest Glenkinchie whisky from the East Lothian part of Scotland, not, alas, with an Islay malt or a malt from the outer isles. I pay generous tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a doughty, tireless and fearless defender of the interests of not just the Harris tweed industry or whisky producers but Scottish salmon farmers, who are a significant contributor to UK exports, never mind Scottish exports. In sector after sector of the Scottish economy, there will be significant material benefits as a consequence of this deal. We promised that we would have a Labour Government delivering for Scotland. Today we are seeing what that promise looks like delivered.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Minister just admitted that this agreement means the expansion of some visa schemes. The Indian Government say that the agreement “eases mobility for professionals” such as intra-corporate transferees and their dependants and independent professionals like chefs. It also says that the new double contribution convention creates a three-year exemption from national insurance contributions for Indians working here. Can the Minister confirm that this agreement will make Indian migrant workers in Britain cheaper to employ, relative to British workers, than they are today—yes or no?

[Mr Alexander]

The points-based immigration system is not affected. The UK has not given away visas or created new routes as part of this deal. It is existing business mobility routes that have been expanded for highly skilled and experienced professionals to cover additional sectors.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on securing this vital trade deal. The automotive sector in the west midlands has been worried about increasing tariffs in the US, so a trade deal with India—a country where UK brands are highly respected—is extremely welcome. Can the Minister tell my constituents in Halesowen who work in the automotive sector how this deal will benefit them?

[Mr Alexander]

I hope I can give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance, and I am conscious that there was an additional point I should have made earlier in relation to steel. As part of this agreement, we have included a bilateral safeguard mechanism, which allows us to temporarily suspend or increase tariffs if an industry is suffering or there is a threat of serious injury as a result of reduced duties.

To my hon. Friend’s question, automotive companies will now benefit from selling to India with tariffs under a quota reduced from over 100% to 10%. We have agreed quotas to limit the volume of duty-free imports permitted to enter our markets. That will open opportunities for the sector, giving them a competitive edge in the Indian market and increased access to India’s rapidly growing middle class. As the sector transitions to electric vehicles, so will the market access we have secured as part of this deal. It will give British businesses the opportunity to scale up their exports as production ramps up. Both the UK and India have growing EV markets and production, so we want to protect these industries while ensure that consumers have choice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be aware of the tremendous filming potential in Northern Ireland, and of the increasing number of Hollywood films shot there. The Northern Ireland film and TV industry has made a significant contribution to the regional economy, boosting it by some £330 million since 2018, and 4,000 jobs are tied to it. It is essential that we outline the importance of trade deals to the regions, and the film sector must be part of that. Solutions must be found to enable global film makers to film in picturesque, skilled, cost-efficient Northern Ireland.

[Mr Alexander]

Picturesque and skilled—I cannot remember the other word that the hon. Member used, but I agreed with every one of them. As I recollect, significant parts of “The Crown” were filmed in Northern Ireland. There is a huge and burgeoning economic opportunity for the film industry in Northern Ireland; as he rightly recognised, that is a tribute not solely to Northern Ireland’s extraordinary scenery, but to the extraordinary skills and capabilities of its workforce. The film sector is and will remain a key part of our creative industries, which employ millions of people, not just in Northern Ireland but across the whole UK. On his point about the US, I assure him that officials and Ministers are in regular communication with our US counterparts. I will not get into the detail of those discussions, but the point he made has been well taken.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

May I add my congratulations to the Minister and everybody involved in getting this significant trade deal with what will soon be the biggest economy in the world over the line? In Welwyn Hatfield, we have a vibrant Indian diaspora, including my friend Councillor Pankit Shah, who, just over 20 years after moving to the UK, became our first ever British-Indian mayor of Welwyn Hatfield. He has served with distinction. Our close connection is principally due to the University of Hertfordshire in Hatfield, where thousands of students from India have studied, and continue to do so. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while today is a fantastic moment for trade, it is vital that we continue to have visa schemes that encourage Indian students to come and study in our country?

[Mr Alexander]

Let me echo my hon. Friend’s generous tribute to Councillor Pankit Shah, and many like him who have made an immense contribution to the United Kingdom, making us what we are today. That reflects the human bridge formed by 1.9 million people, and the human dynamic here, and students play a significant, valued role in that.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

AG Barr, which has iconic brands such as Irn-Bru and Rubicon, is based in my Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch constituency. What will the trade deal mean for soft drinks companies such as Barr?

[Mr Alexander]

I hesitate to say, “What’s it called? Cumbernauld!” Whether for Scottish salmon, Scottish whisky or perhaps the most iconic Scottish product of all, Irn-Bru, this India-UK trade deal is good news. When I was being briefed by officials shortly before coming to the House, I asked for examples of the sectors in which we would see the biggest benefits, and my hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that Irn-Bru featured prominently in the description given.

EU Trading Relationship

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I will certainly endeavour to extend that generosity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing an important and timely debate, and commend him for his ongoing work on the issue as the chair of the UK Trade and Business Commission. The letter that he and a number of parliamentary colleagues present submitted to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who leads for the Government on UK-EU relationships, made some excellent points, many of which I will endeavour to address in my remarks today. I will seek to specifically address the three main points that he raised in his introductory speech—the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the broader alignment and the youth mobility scheme. I also thank all hon. Members who have spoken today.

First, I will set out why we must use our strengthened relations with the EU to deliver a long-term UK-EU strategic alliance that grows our economy. I listened with care to the remarks of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), suggesting that if the Conservative party were in office, we would have the best of all worlds. I struggle to reconcile that with the universe that the rest of us live in: the Conservative Government not only abjectly failed to secure a trade agreement with the United States, but alienated our closest trading partners in the European Union and were in a deep freeze with China. It is not entirely clear what the Conservatives’ grand post-Brexit strategy involved.

Let us consider the numbers for a moment. In trade, geography still matters. As a bloc, the European Union is still the UK’s largest trading market, covering 46% or about £813 billion of our trade. It is important to note that the UK is the EU’s second-largest trade partner, but unfortunately, UK exports to the EU were 5% lower in 2024 than they were in 2018, which is the most recent stable pre-Brexit, pre-covid year for comparison, and UK imports from the EU have remained level at about plus 0.4%.

Moreover, our overall global trade performance continues to suffer, and we are lagging behind our G7 peers. In 2024, our global trade flows were only 4% above 2018 levels, while other G7 economies have seen an average trade growth of 8%. What explains those trends? There is an increasing body of external research studies, such as those of the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance and Aston University, which demonstrate that Brexit accounts for those changes. That is why it is in both the UK and the EU’s interest to strengthen our trading relationship.

Let me turn now to some of the specific issues raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), who I like and admire on a personal level, gave a sadly rather partisan speech in wilful denial of the fact that had his side prevailed in the 2014 referendum in Scotland, we would have found ourselves outside the European Union. A politics of manufactured grievance, flags and new borders is as wrong in Scotland as it is here in England. Thankfully, Scotland made its choice to support a sensible and pragmatic internationalist party in July.

[Stephen Gethins]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Alexander]

No, I am keen to make some progress.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) made a characteristically brilliant speech—a judgment in no way related to the fact that he is the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee. In all seriousness, fresh from the spring meetings in Washington this week, he brought a wider geopolitical perspective to our debate that frames the conversations that are happening today between EU Commission President von der Leyen and the Prime Minister.

I note all the points that were made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer). I simply say that when I see images of the Prime Minister meeting President Trump in the Oval Office, meeting EU Commission President von der Leyen today, at the Lancaster House summit, or sitting with President Macron in Paris, I feel a sense of relief and change. There is change, because the clown show is over, and there is relief that we have a serious Prime Minister for these serious times.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), in a strikingly personal speech, spoke eloquently of the divisions we witnessed within families and communities at the time of the Brexit referendum. That explains why we as a Government have no interest in reopening old divisions and wounds, and instead are working to remove unnecessary barriers and strengthen our trading relationships.

No debate in this House would be complete without the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I assure him, although he is no longer in his place, that in the work of both the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the concerns and needs of Northern Ireland are never far from their thoughts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) brought to bear all his professional experience working across Europe and made a characteristically powerful case for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. I made that case only this morning at a meeting with TheCityUK representatives here in London. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) then spoke eloquently of the need to maintain high standards in farming and the merits of strengthening our trading relationship with the European Union.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) took us on a veritable tour of research and innovation labs in his constituency. He is right to recognise that innovation today relies on not only often complex, integrated and international supply chains, but research co-operation. What was the opportunity cost of the years when the previous Government took us out of the Horizon cross-Europe research programme? It is exactly that kind of research collaboration that our own scientists need and demand if they are going to continue to be world leading in their research domains.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) highlighted some of the statistics that I also used in this debate to highlight the damage done by our predecessors. He asked if we would act only in the national interest. That is an undertaking I am happy to offer. National interest is the north star by which we are navigating these frankly turbulent trading waters today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke of the civic ties between his community and Germany. It was a timely and helpful reminder that first through the European Coal and Steel Community, then through the European Economic Community, and ultimately through the European Union, the European project has always been about peace as well as security and prosperity.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) also touched on the need for spending on defence to reflect the changing circumstances, not least in the Euro-Atlantic security area. That is a recognition that underpins the strategic defence review and the recent decisions that have been reached on defence expenditure by this Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) asked me to pass on her good wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office for all his excellent work ahead of the UK-EU summit next month. As a colleague in the Cabinet Office, and indeed as a friend, I will be happy to do so. She is right to recognise all the work that he is doing to undo past damage and to rebuild and reset relations with our friends, partners and neighbours in the European Union.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) urged us to take serious action to strengthen our trading relationships with the EU. Again, I assure her that that is exactly the work to which we have committed ourselves.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) rightly referred to the changed context on our continent, and indeed in our world. Red tape and uncertainty—his description—seems a pretty fair judgment of the inheritance that we secured in July. In these history-shaping days, it is right to recognise the changing geopolitical and geo-economic backdrop for the negotiations under way—not just the talks in Downing Street today, but those being led by the Minister for the Cabinet Office ahead of next month’s summit.

The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) urged the leadership to follow the trade and follow the money. As I said earlier, we have chosen to follow the data, rather than the post-imperial delusions that were the hallmark of our predecessors’ approach to trade.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who has eloquently spoken of the need for closer ties with Europe on many occasions, talked of the need for new debates and offered a number of powerful suggestions for the way forward at the UK-EU summit. I have to say that she offered a fantastically large number of suggestions in the necessarily constrained time for her speech, but I listened carefully to all of them.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) urged the Government to write a new chapter. I hope we are doing somewhat more than that: we are actually writing a whole new trade strategy, which we aim to publish in the coming weeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) acknowledged the need for partnerships with like-minded nations. I agree with his powerful points about the particular need for security and defence partnerships given the changed geopolitical context with which we are all familiar.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) reminded us, with reference to the Good Friday agreement, that we must reject isolationism. I am happy to confirm that we have left behind the era in which a previous Prime Minister resisted the opportunity to confirm that President Macron is indeed a friend of the United Kingdom. Let me confirm today that we regard France as a trading partner, a close neighbour, a steadfast security partner and a country bound to the United Kingdom by bonds not just of shared history, but of shared and continuing friendship.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) spoke authoritatively of the need for cool-headed, ambitious negotiations. I assure him that that is the approach that the Government are taking to the coming summit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) made the case for recognising the challenges faced by touring artists. I put on the record my appreciation of all the work done for our country not just by touring artists but by the creative industries more broadly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), in a veritable Noah’s ark of a speech, highlighted not just the importance of the pygmy hippo that she met but, more substantively, the need for an SPS agreement. I assure her that we continue to work on all those issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) moved seamlessly on to a discussion of Carl the crane, and indeed his local businesses. I assure him that we noted all his points, and we will endeavour to ensure that small businesses are at the forefront of our thinking as we work not least on SPS and the other issues about which we have spoken.

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) brought a Cornish perspective to the debate. I listened carefully to all the points that he made about the need to bring down unnecessary barriers.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) similarly spoke eloquently of the needs of fishermen in his constituency, and made the case for an SPS agreement. We committed in our manifesto to negotiate that veterinary agreement with the EU—an agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, to use the technical term. That is because agrifood producers across the United Kingdom are among those most affected, as they are buried in the paperwork left by our predecessors, and are affected by checks when exporting to the EU.

The EU remains an absolutely vital market for agrifood producers, accounting for 57% of the UK’s agrifood exports in 2024. Between 2018 and 2024, UK exports of agrifood products to the European Union, excluding beverages, dropped by 16% in inflation-adjusted terms. I have to say, that does not sound like the best of all worlds to me. The potential benefits of an SPS agreement are clear: Aston University estimates that an SPS agreement could increase UK agrifood exports by fully 22.5%. Bearing in mind that we import more agrifood from the EU than we export to it, a veterinary agreement would of course be mutually beneficial.

A number of Members raised a youth mobility scheme. The UK and the EU are in talks ahead of the summit, but alas I will not provide a running commentary today in this Chamber. We made a clear manifesto commitment to bring down net migration and to have no return to free movement within the EU. It is important that we determine who comes into our country, and those things are not up for negotiation in the continuing discussions.

We would like to strengthen MRPQ arrangements so that businesses can access the right talent at the right time. Again, improvements would be mutually beneficial. UK and European industries have repeatedly asked for the recognition of professional qualifications between the UK and the EU to be strengthened. That includes 24% of respondents to the recent British Chambers of Commerce annual trade survey and the European Services Forum.

On strengthening relations with the EU, we have an opportunity to address some of the trade barriers that we did not explicitly reference in our manifesto, including regulatory co-operation—

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but we are out of time. I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke a few moments ago of a good dialogue. We are committed to working with the devolved Governments across the UK, and there is frequent, proactive engagement between Ministers and their devolved counterparts to achieve that. For example, we have worked with the Scottish Government on the joint investment plan for Grangemouth, with the Welsh Government through the Tata Steel/Port Talbot transition board and alongside the Northern Ireland Executive on the city deals.

[Kenneth Stevenson]

The Minister will be aware of last week’s historic UK Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman being based on biological sex, which provided important legal clarity. It is critical now that the UK and Scottish Governments work in a co-ordinated manner to ensure that the practical impacts are understood. How does the Minister plan to ensure that this co-ordinated approach delivers for women in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, and does he agree that the ruling must be a lesson for the SNP Government to stop wasting Scottish taxpayers’ money on flawed legislation and court cases?

[Mr Alexander]

The ruling upholds the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex and brings welcome clarity and confidence for women and, indeed, service providers. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as Britain’s equality regulator, has already committed to supporting service providers with updated guidance. On the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, we will meet Scottish counterparts to discuss the implications of this significant judgment.

[Katrina Murray]

I thank the Minister for his answer to the earlier question. Events such as Tartan Day provide a vital opportunity for companies such as RSE in Cumbernauld to promote their products to international markets. RSE has repeatedly told me that it wants to be a part of Brand Scotland. Will the Minister outline how he will work with the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government to ensure that Tartan Day is an even bigger success next year to secure investment in the Scottish economy and create Scottish jobs?

[Mr Alexander]

Let me first pay tribute to RSE and all its brilliant work on water tech. Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of representing Scotland in the United States along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland at Tartan Week, where we met a range of businesses and investors to bang the drum for Scotland as a great place to invest and to work. It was, frankly, a powerful opportunity to show that Scotland has two Governments committed to its prosperity and wellbeing. As the UK Government committed to growth, we are more interested in new markets than old arguments, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State actively reached out to the First Minister seeking to co-operate by co-ordinating our presence.

[John Grady]

I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to strengthen co-operation with the Scottish Government, to cut waste and inefficiency and to ensure that Ministers take responsibility for public services. This is an important area for potential co-operation and dialogue, because, in Scotland, we currently have more quangos than there are MSPs in Holyrood, which wastes millions of pounds a year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the SNP Scottish Government should stop hiding behind these quangos, end the culture of waste and take responsibility for plummeting standards in Scottish public services?

[Mr Alexander]

I echo the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The powerful point he made about the ultimate ministerial responsibility resting rightly and reasonably with elected representatives applies north of the Tweed as surely as it does south of the Tweed. I only wish that the Scottish Government would use the powers that they have to do the same and actively cut waste and bureaucracy. Scotland deserves better than what we are witnessing just now.

[Elaine Stewart]

Does the Minister agree that this Labour Government’s plan for change has helped to deliver 1,500 more GPs to help stop the 8 am rush and that the Scottish Government should work with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to look at how the SNP-run health service in Scotland could learn from such action?

[Mr Alexander]

As the UK Government, we have delivered more than 2 million extra NHS appointments seven months early, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out just a few moments ago. Yet we all know that, despite the brilliance of NHS staff, the NHS in Scotland is still on its knees. Today, from this Dispatch Box, I urge our colleagues in the Scottish Government to work with us and actually learn some lessons from our team in the Department of Health and Social Care who are already driving change across England.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Of course, if the Government were serious about co-operating with the devolved Government, tomorrow’s Second Reading debate on devolving immigration policy to Scotland, which has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), would not be necessary. The Minister will recall that, in the run-up to the general election, Labour’s Deputy Leader in Scotland, Jackie Baillie, said that they would be open to talks on this issue and, of course, it would be unthinkable that she would have said such a thing just to gain short-term electoral advantage. Therefore, having waited a year, can the Minister tell us when he expects those talks to open?

[Mr Alexander]

In the spirit of collegiality that has been the hallmark of this question session so far, let me respectfully suggest that there is a fundamental philosophical difference between our two parties. The SNP wants to end the United Kingdom and we believe in devolution, which is, ultimately, a two-Parliament, two-Government solution. There are two Governments who represent the best interests of the United Kingdom and, in that sense, I appreciate that there is a constant demand and a constant set of grievances from the SNP about why devolution is not working. It is about time that we had a Government in Scotland who were committed to making devolution work.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Further to the question from the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson), given last week’s UK Supreme Court ruling, which I welcome as a return to common sense and biological reality, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Government messaging reflects this clarity and that it is implemented consistently both across the devolved regions and here in Westminster?

[Mr Alexander]

I can assure the hon. Lady that the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has a remit across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, has already committed to supporting service providers with updated guidance. I assure the hon. Lady that we are talking to colleagues in Scotland and that we will also be talking to colleagues in Wales and, indeed, in Northern Ireland.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to assist local authorities in using public procurement to help create economic growth.