UK-India Free Trade Agreement
Debate between Jim Allister and Stephen Gethins(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
May I thank the officials who have been working with the Minister on this trade deal? I am sure he will not mind me doing so. These trade deals are difficult, and they take a while to come to fruition. I would also like to acknowledge the reduction on whisky duty—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) rightly highlighted, that has to be matched by domestic policy towards the whisky industry. That being said, I know that distilleries such as Arbikie in my constituency, which trade globally, will be absolutely delighted with that measure. It would be helpful, as we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench, to know more about some of the safeguards that have been put in place in relation to food and drink; the Minister has mentioned some, and I hope he will mention a little more later on.
This is exactly the kind of deal that we were told only Brexit Britain could deliver—that only if the UK left the European Union would we be able to deliver these kinds of deals. Except that the EU has gone and done exactly the same. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that all that stuff about Brexit Britain was absolute nonsense, and that the EU has been able to do exactly the same!
Stephen Gethins
It would be remiss of me not to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Jim Allister
What the hon. Member has not mentioned is that it took the EU 20 years to get a deal with India. It took the United Kingdom three.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) says that I have not mentioned that, but I had just started. Of course, he represents a part of the United Kingdom that we have all been told gets the best of both worlds by being in the single market and the customs union. Imagine: the best of both worlds, as we have been told by Conservative and Labour Members!
On that point, will the Minister tell the House why the EU has been able to remove more tariffs on its EU goods? There is also—I wonder whether he will talk about this—a stronger commitment on climate sustainability as well as trading, including elements dealing with climate change. Of course, on bilateral income, although the EU is a bigger market and therefore the figures will be bigger, we know that the percentage for EU savings is also higher. I know that the Minister used to be a European enthusiast, although since he has gone into government that has dissipated somewhat.
Jim Allister
I will deal with the fact that the EU just signed one.
As I said in an intervention, I was a Member of the European Parliament when Peter Mandelson was a Trade Minister, and I well remember him trumpeting the fact that the EU was going to negotiate a trade deal with India. That was in 2007. It took the EU until 2026 to cobble together a trade deal, such is the pace at which it proceeds. The post-Brexit United Kingdom has been able to reach this deal since 2022, so although EU fantasists seek to draw a parallel, what they say does not stack up.
Stephen Gethins
If Brexit has been so great, why on earth has nobody else followed the UK out the door?
Jim Allister
I suspect that one of the reasons is that the EU made the process a punishment beating of the United Kingdom, in respect of Northern Ireland, so that any other country that was thinking of daring to assert its sovereignty would be frightened out of it. I will return to the impact of this deal on Northern Ireland in a minute.
It is good to see the tariffs fall. Across the board, tariffs on UK products going to India will generally fall from 15% to 3%. However, I have a question for the Minister. From what I read in this deal, it seems that once the deal is confirmed, there will be an immediate, uninhibited flow of Indian goods that come under the deal into the United Kingdom, but it seems that the reciprocal movement of goods will be on a progressive basis, rather than immediate. Perhaps the Minister will explain to the House why that is. Why do the Indians get immediate access, but we get truncated and delayed access? We would all be interested to hear that.
I note that the deal reduces the horrendous tariffs on whiskey, but they are still at a very high level of 75%. I have Bushmills in my constituency, which provokes my interest in this issue. It provides good jobs. Ultimately, we are told, over 10 years, the tariff might reduce to 40%, but that is still a whopping tariff, though, yes, it is much better than 150%.
I want some clarification from the Minister on a point relating to vehicles. A portion of this agreement deals with access to the Indian market for United Kingdom vehicles, but that access is capped. May I ask explicitly if that includes buses, or is it just cars? It is very important that it includes buses, because in my constituency we have Wrightbus, which produces quality buses, and we also have buses produced in Falkirk in Scotland, and elsewhere. It is important that there is access across the vehicular market, that it includes buses, and that it is not unreasonably capped. Perhaps the Minister can explain the why of the cap.
I come now to the absurdity of the implementation of this deal, the Windsor framework and the protocol that afflicts Northern Ireland. Under the Windsor framework, we in Northern Ireland are left under the EU’s customs union. That means that any imports from India come to Northern Ireland subject not to the tariffs set forth in this deal, but to EU tariffs. Our exports, such as Bushmills whiskey, go out under the deal, but imports are blocked from having whatever tariff applies for the rest of the United Kingdom. We are subject to the EU tariffs; that is a common feature across all the deals that have been done and will be done.
Jim Allister
No, it most certainly would not. In modern times, there is abundant opportunity to develop a scheme, with the assistance of modern technology, that would allow for mutual enforcement when it comes to something as fundamental as international trade.
If a company in my constituency wants to sell buses to Germany—I will stick with buses—it must make them to the standards of the German customer. If a German company wants to sell buses to the United Kingdom, it must make them to the standards of the United Kingdom. That is the fundamental starting point for trade. We create a circumstance wherein each country enforces the standards of the other, and we thereby protect the market of the other. To underwrite that, we introduce a criminal sanction saying that if any company in the United Kingdom breaches those rules, there is criminal liability, and we will look for reciprocal arrangements. That is the essence of mutual enforcement. That would work, but instead, we have sacrificed sovereignty over part of our country to a foreign jurisdiction, namely, the EU. We have said to it, “We will subject all our economy to your rules, which we do not make and cannot change,” and we did that utterly unnecessarily.
The real bite of unfairness in that is that many companies in Northern Ireland do not trade outside the United Kingdom—many do not even trade outside Northern Ireland—but they are caught by the same rules as if they did. They must make and market their goods as dictated by the foreign jurisdiction. They need none of the protections necessary for the EU single market, but they face the imposition of unnecessary restrictions.
The issue really reduces to this: are we a United Kingdom? If we are a United Kingdom, the laws of this nation should be made by this United Kingdom, not by a foreign jurisdiction, which imposes on my constituents in 300 areas of law. These are laws that we do not make and cannot change. We are a supplicant rule taker. That is so fundamentally wrong. The Minister will give me—and has given me before—a rather trite response: “Oh, that is all because of Brexit!” Sorry, but it is not. It is because we in Northern Ireland did not get Brexit; the Windsor framework denied us Brexit. It kept us in the EU’s customs union and single market, whereas the rest of the United Kingdom escaped. That is why we have this absurd situation where we do not get the full benefit of these trade deals. As a representative of my constituency, I ask other Members of this House: why are my constituents less important or entitled in these matters than those of every other Member from Great Britain?
We then have some in this House, such as the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), who want us all to rejoin the customs union so that we cannot make trade deals, whether with India or any country. We could then have only the deals that someone else makes for us—it is such absurdity. Those are the fundamental issues that I would like to see addressed.
As for getting the best of both worlds, that is a fantasy for Northern Ireland, and there is a very simple reason why. We might have access to the EU market—as GB does through its trade deal with the EU—but we forget that to bring all our goods and raw materials from our main market in GB, they have to pass through an international customs border, with paperwork, checks and extra costs.
Jim Allister
It is not Brexit but the Windsor framework. We did not have a Brexit, and that is what causes the Irish sea border. There is this fantasy that Northern Ireland is in some special position, but we have the worst of all worlds. Although we were told that, under the Windsor framework, we would become the Singapore of the west, not one extra job has been created by foreign direct investment, which proves what a fantasy it is. The reason it is a fantasy is that no company will set up on the basis that they could sell into the EU—as they can from GB—and forget about the fact that the raw materials will be subject to an international border and the associated extra costs, which more than cancels it out. I have probably tested your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will leave it there.