Department for Business and Trade

John Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Business and Trade Committee on which I serve. As Chair of such a Committee, he is that rarest of things: capable of independent thought.

We know that growth is predicted to be sclerotic, and that is before global conflicts whip up the waters around us such that Labour’s Britain is but a cork in storm-tossed seas. If growth truly were the mission, then the shock troops ought to be the Department for Business and Trade. Yet the Department’s plans to cut 1,500 jobs have been branded “irrational and arbitrary” by the civil service’s biggest union, the Public and Commercial Services Union. That is despite the 17.8% increase in day-to-day funding, plus extra capital compared with the main estimates that we have heard about today. The Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), has said that

“we’re going to have to achieve more with fewer people”

—fine words and congratulations to the spads who crafted them, but the reality on the ground is we will inevitably get less done by fewer people.

What a disaster, just as free trade agreements—the fruits of Brexit from seeds planted by previous Conservative Governments—come piling in. We should be maximising these deals given that global economic power is shifting towards a Pacific rim with a burgeoning middle class. Our far too few DBT experts will have their ranks thinned, making it tougher for British firms to tap into lucrative markets abroad.

What does it say about this Government’s ambition? They would rather rush back to the skirts of nanny Europe—familiar old Europe with its feeble growth—when we could be the trading nation that Adam Smith envisaged 250 years ago with his book, “The Wealth of Nations”. We could and should be maximising the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP, giving us access to a market of 12 countries worth some £12 trillion and with 500 million potential customers. Even the EU, which never saw a trade deal it liked, is interested in joining.

The great prize in the much-vaunted but barely discernible “reset” with the EU is, we are told, a sanitary and phytosanitary deal supposed to smooth the way for agricultural goods, seafood and livestock into and out of Europe. It should not have taken the renegotiation of the entire deal to get—French, especially—customs to stop being le squad awkward. Worse, so-called dynamic alignment on SPS is a cage without a key, meaning that Britain will once again revert to being rule takers and not rule makers.

Turning to steel, I recall being in this place on that extraordinary Saturday listening to the self-congratulatory backslapping of Labour MPs hailing the saving of the industry in what was nationalisation in all but name. It seems to me that taxpayers are keeping blast furnaces alight with bundles of £20 notes, for the supplementary estimates earmarked £300 million for steel plants with no sign of the comprehensive steel strategy.

Perhaps nothing sums up more the meltdown of the sector under DBT’s yoke than the reported news that the Dalzell plate mill in Scotland lacked the cash to buy slab steel from British Steel, risking the raw material that Navantia needs for the fleet solid support ships at their Harland & Wolff yard in Belfast. Not so much for the want of a horseshoe nail the kingdom was lost, but for the lack of a cohesive DBT strategy, the steel industry and billons in cash may be lost.

For the wider economy, pivotal to each and every one of our constituents, the Department for Business and Trade looks like the linchpin which holds the wheels to the axle. The question is whether that pin is too small and too brittle.

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

John Cooper Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It would remiss of me not to touch on the fact that the roots of this trade deal stretch back to the previous Conservative Government, and not to mention that the then Secretary of State Alister Jack—now Lord Jack of Courance—sent an aircraft carrier stuffed with dancers and pipers from the Edinburgh military tattoo to India, to highlight the unfairness of the regime that whisky faced out there, which this deal does much to address.

I have the pleasure of serving on the Business and Trade Committee, chaired adroitly by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). When we talk about these trade deals in the Committee, the Government figures worry me, and he touched on them himself. We have heard time and again that the expected lift in GDP from this deal is around £4.8 billion, or 0.13% of the UK’s GDP, but those figures seem incredibly low. That may be because of a lack of ambition—I hope not—or because of caution on the part of the Government, which is perfectly understandable, but it is incredible that we are expecting so little from these trade deals. We could raise those figures—they must be a floor, not a ceiling—and do much better.

A difficulty that hon. Members have touched on is that the Department for Business and Trade is cutting its head count. Of course the bloated state has to be reduced, but we have to apply those cuts judiciously. It is good that the in-country team in India is staying put, but if the teams in the UK that help businesses here to export are cut, then we will have a problem, and we will kill growth.

We expect modest gains from the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, yet it offers a tremendous—an absolutely huge—market at a time when the EU’s share of GDP is drifting away. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) is keen on returning us to a customs union, but that customs union would commit us to applying EU-set tariffs, taking away the freedom we got from Brexit to strike out and do our own deals. The EU is potentially looking at the CPTPP, but we are already in the partnership. We have first-mover advantage. We should strike out with the confidence that Brexit gives us as a trading nation. Adam Smith literally wrote the book on free trade; this country is a trading nation—that is what built this country—and we should get back to that confidence.

On agriculture, the Business and Trade Committee took written and oral evidence from Tom Bradshaw, the president of the National Farmers Union. He was concerned that while lamb exports could do well through this deal, dairying is once again left wide open to difficulties. That is an issue in my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway; we have some of the most productive grassland in the UK. We make fabulous Galloway cheddar, and I would love to see more of that exported to India. Not much paneer probably comes to this country from India at the moment, but that will change. India is moving at incredible pace. It is hard to believe that in five or 10 years’ time, the Indian dairy industry will not have moved on. The licences that the Minister talked about will be in place, and there will be a flow this way from dairying, which is a concern for that sensitive sector.

The other thing that worries me on the Business and Trade Committee is the much-vaunted EU reset that the Government are seeking. Part of that is a sanitary and phytosanitary deal, which will affect agriculture in the round. Can the Minister tell us what impact that might have on future trade deals? At the moment, these trade deals are struck with the UK based on UK rules and regulations. If we accept dynamic alignment with Europe, we are no longer rule makers in this area; we are rule takers. Will those countries with whom we are striking deals have to look to the EU? Where does that leave us? Does it not hamstring us at a time when, as I say, we have this fantastic opportunity to strike our own deals and hopefully drive growth?

INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth

John Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes the point incredibly well about the need to reindustrialise and create good industrial jobs. It is my mission as Industry Minister to release additional productive capacity in the UK that will increase our manufacturing output and improve our productivity and balance of trade. That is rare—it might be decades since a Government have had this level of ambition for our industrial and manufacturing sectors—but for us it is about not just ambition and words but delivering jobs on the ground.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It would be churlish of Opposition Members not to recognise the importance of these 500 jobs or welcome their being saved, as it would for Government Members not to acknowledge that we are seeing a sort of self-licking ice cream here—a self-perpetuating system whereby the Government have to intervene in industries that are being damaged by their own policies. Industry that is hanging on by the skin of its teeth will not take well to the news of cheaper energy prices in due course—years down the line—because it is almost at the edge of going out of business. Instead of measuring ourselves against expensive Italy and France, should we not be looking at the much cheaper prices in the United States and China?

[Chris McDonald]

I enjoyed the analogy about the self-licking ice cream, but it demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a real industrial strategy is on the Conservative side of the House. We all like to think that things are simple, but then we grow up. It is important to recognise that these industries are trading in international markets and need to abide by their rules. What we have done is to create a package that supports a sustainable business plan for that industry. The hon. Member mentions the lower energy prices in the USA—I acknowledge that the USA has lower energy prices, primarily due to its decision to introduce fracking. We have decided not to do that. Is he saying that he would like to do that? If he would, that is fine, but it is a point of difference between us—we will not do that. Our policy is to ensure that our industries remain competitive without that.

Business and Trade Committee

John Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. In my short time in Parliament, perhaps the most terrifying thing I have heard so far is the evidence we took on the Business and Trade Committee that state actors are joining forces with criminal gangs to attack this country in the cyber-theatre. From his vast experience, has the right hon. Gentleman ever delivered a report quite so urgent and time-sensitive?

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the question and for his sterling work on the Committee as our inquiry has been driven forward over the last seven or eight months. I have not. It was striking to compare the evidence we took with history lessons from the 1920s and 1930s. As a country, we have developed infrastructure to tackle these kinds of threats in the past. Indeed, the forces that we assembled in the 1920s and 1930s were so important that they became known as the fourth fighting service. It was certainly crucial in helping us to stand up the Ministry of Economic Warfare in world war two with the speed that we did. We are now in a world of chokepoints, coercion and weaponised interdependence, and today’s cyber-attacks will be nothing compared with those in future. Frankly, the country is simply not ready. We have to get our skates on.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

John Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising those two issues. I raised the issue of redundancy packages with the company earlier, and it assured me that such packages had been made available. I then raised the same question with Unite the union, and it has undertaken to go away and confirm that for me—I want to do my own due diligence and make sure that is true.

I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend raised the issue of contract workers. It was reported that they were locked out of the site, but the actual situation is slightly more complex. Contract workers had their permits revoked this morning, which I realise sounds rather dramatic, but for a COMAH—control of major accident hazards—site, that is a normal procedure in certain circumstances. In fact, the workers themselves believed it was due to weather conditions this morning. It was actually to ensure that all workers on the site—either direct employees or contract workers through their contract managers—could be briefed at the same time on the issue. Contract workers were then allowed to return home or to resume work, recognising that not all of them would want to stay on the site at that time, having received such shocking news. Hopefully, that helps to explain the situation. Of course, I will ensure that I continue to ask these questions of the company and engage closely with both Unite and GMB on these issues.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

On the Business and Trade Committee, we hear all the time that energy costs in this country are unaffordable, and it puts industry of every kind at a disadvantage. We are seeing the results of that today. The other issue is the perverse carbon border adjustment mechanism, which actually makes imports of ethylene cheaper. The Minister referred to imports. Is it not the case that we need to look at all these policies in the round? We are crippling British industry.

[Chris McDonald]

I am committed to looking at the entire business environment for our-energy intensive industries—our heavy industry—because I want to improve the competitiveness. Perhaps I have an ally across the House who might help to point out areas that we could look at; I would certainly welcome that in the future.

I can perhaps provide a bit more detail on the two issues the hon. Gentleman raised: energy costs and the CBAM. On electricity costs, which are not the major factor for this site, the Government have introduced a range of measures to try to improve the cost competitiveness of the UK versus Europe, and we could talk about those in more detail at some other point. On gas, the UK is competitive with Europe; it is certainly cheaper than Germany and the Czech Republic, and it is slightly more expensive than Italy and Spain. The issue here is fundamentally the cost of gas in the USA, which is considerably cheaper, and we all understand why that is.

The CBAM issue is a bit more complex, because 100% of the material goes into the EU, so there is an issue around EU market alignment. Again, we could talk through that in more detail, but it means it is not quite as straightforward as if a domestic producer were asking for some relief from measures.

Employment Rights Bill

John Cooper Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

I will finish by drawing the House’s attention to a case that starkly proves the need for this legislation and that has not been public since March this year. Members and those watching our proceedings may have read the book “Careless People” by Sarah Wynn-Williams, a shocking exposé of the workplace culture at Meta, its practices in Myanmar and China, and how it has targeted teenagers in emotional distress to push consumer products on them in their darkest hours. Despite previous public statements that Meta no longer uses NDAs in cases of sexual harassment—which Sarah has repeatedly alleged—she is being pushed to financial ruin through the arbitration system in the UK, as Meta seeks to silence and punish her for speaking out. Meta has served a gagging order on Sarah and is attempting to fine her $50,000 for every breach of that order. She is on the verge of bankruptcy. I am sure that the whole House and the Government will stand with Sarah as we pass this legislation to ensure that whistleblowers and those with the moral courage to speak out are always protected.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Sadly, we are not here to relitigate this entire Bill, which is so wide in scope and impact, and yet so skimpy in detail, having been cobbled together for a headline under Labour’s “first 100 days” banner. I refer the House to Lords amendment 61, which without doubt will be dashed aside as Labour seeks to salvage something, anything, as a legacy for its deposed red queen, the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), whose Bill this very much remains.

Lords amendment 61 would reinstate the requirement for trade union members to opt in to contribute to the political fund. Incredibly, Labour Members, who bristle at commercial subscriptions that rely on consumer inertia, will likely vote down this sensible and proportionate change. The reasons why demonstrate the wider issue with the Bill. The left’s hive mind aside, the Bill is a love letter to the unions—a thank you for all the support.

Labour has been bought with union gold, with donations totalling almost £40 million since the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) took the helm of his party. It means that the Bill is payback for the unions, all the time masquerading as a fillip for the working class. We know how important that working-class concept is for the Labour party from watching the candidates for the vacant deputy leadership engage in a “prolier than thou” contest, with hairshirt-and-gravel shades of Monty Python’s “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch thrown in.

In reality, the Bill has little to do with actual working-class people, and the Labour party has no monopoly on them in their ranks. Instead, the Bill does rather more for what is sometimes called the “boutique left”—the trade union apparatchiks and their ilk. The Bill only makes sense if we see it through the skewed prism of every employer being a robber baron and every union organiser a saint. It does nothing for all those who will struggle to find a job in the first place, as its granting of day one rights will give companies—already facing big bills thanks to employer national insurance contribution rises—pause for thought. Other amendments fight a rearguard action with a sensible six-month qualification period. The Bill means that unions are going to party like it is 1979—but they should have a care. In ’79, restive unions triggered strike after strike, sounding the death knell for both their own unfettered power and for the Labour Government.

Lords amendment 62 addresses the threshold for strike action, meaning that 50% of eligible members would have to vote for action. Are the unions not better being sure of the complete backing of their members before lighting the picket-line braziers? Again, the unions should learn the lessons of the past. Next year marks a century since the general strike. Although often talked of in reverential tones by the left, the strike left the unions’ proud red banners in the dirt and the miners it was meant to support back in the underground galleries with worse pay conditions. Why? Because the strike alienated the public. Last week, the chat from the man forced on to the Clapham omnibus when London was crippled by transport strikes was less, “Up the workers!” than, “Right up the workers,” with their £65,000 base salaries and demands for a still shorter working week.

Business cannot afford the Bill unamended, as it will take an estimated £5 billion out at a time of belt tightening. The public cannot afford the Bill unamended, as it will facilitate more frequent and more damaging strikes, and it will make jobs harder to come by. Labour itself cannot afford the Bill unamended. Labour Members may think that, with scandal and crisis all around, they cannot sink any lower in the popularity stakes. Oh, they can, and the Bill is the ticking timebomb that could take them to their nadir faster than they imagine.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my proud membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who has just popped out for some well-earned tea, for his hard work steering the Bill through the House. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my equally hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to her place; we both know that she has big shoes to fill.

Today, we finally arrive at the concluding stages of this historic Bill’s long journey through Parliament. It is a moment that has been many years in the making. For well over a decade, working people have been calling for the protections that this landmark piece of legislation will introduce. It is our duty to deliver them, and to deliver them in full. Last year, people voted for change. They are crying out for change, and this Bill delivers real, meaningful and positive change. It is therefore immensely frustrating, although sadly not surprising, to see the old coalition band get back together in the other place, to have one final go at obstructing this Bill through changes, like Lords amendment 1, which will be the focus of my remarks.

One of the defining aims of the Bill is to end exploitative short and zero-hours contracts. The right to a guaranteed-hours contract is at the heart of the new deal for working people because, as I said on Report, the rise of one-sided flexibility has been one of the most damaging labour market developments of the past 14 years. Such contracts leave workers—often the lowest paid—vulnerable to sudden changes in income, with weekly working hours varying unpredictably. It is an unstable, precarious life that many are forced into, and it is long past time that this exploitative practice was brought to an end.

Lords amendment 1, a throwback team effort from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, seeks to replace the Bill’s right to a guaranteed-hours contract with a far weaker “right to request”. At just five words long, the amendment may seem minor, but it is anything but. As working people know from bitter experience, a right to request often means no right at all. Unfortunately, it is clear from the comments made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) that either Liberal Democrats do not understand or they are wilfully misrepresenting the amendment.

Lords amendment 1 creates a loophole, enabling unscrupulous employers to use pressure or coercion to deter employees from making requests. It also puts that crucial protection out of reach of those who simply are not aware of their rights in the first place. Far from delivering a new right, it reopens the door to workplace conflict, insecurity and exploitation, something of which I am sure the Liberal Democrats would not be proud. It is completely at odds with the spirit and purpose of the provision, and it must be rejected.

We must deliver greater security, stability and dignity to people in their working lives. The right to a guaranteed-hours contract, and the increased financial security that brings with it, is central to achieving that. It will be transformative for living standards, productivity and the economy. I urge colleagues from across the House not to undermine this essential provision and to reject Lords amendment 1. Working people are counting on all of us to do the right thing by them.

Speciality Steel UK: Insolvency

John Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Liberty Pipes is separate and is not part of this situation at all. Of course, there will be concern in the wider group about the impact—I understand that—but at the moment, there is no crossover. Liberty Pipes will continue to do what it is doing and, I am sure, will continue to support the CCUS industry, which is great news for the workers there, and great news for us.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It is good news that Liberty Steel Dalzell in Scotland is not involved in this immediate crisis, but it is not shroud-waving to suggest that the difficulties in the wider industry may mean that one day it will become involved. When the overdue steel strategy arrives, will it be a 360° look at steel production as a whole, in every corner of this country? Will the Minister help Scottish colleagues get to the bottom of the Scottish Government’s murky deal with this company, which means that they are on the hook for potentially as much as £565 million, a quite incredible sum, which is deeply troubling? The Scottish Government are using the devolution settlement to hide behind. What is going on there? Will she shine a torch of truth on that aspect of the steel industry?

[Sarah Jones]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Dalzell is a separate legal entity, so it is not affected, but he is right to worry about the overall situation and its possible impact on the company. I will look into the point he raised about the Scottish Government and Liberty. We are looking at what the steel industry should look like across the whole of the UK; the devolved Governments are involved in the steel strategy, as well as the unions, the industry and others, so we are taking a holistic view of the whole UK to see what we can do with steel.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

This is an important issue. The Invest in Women taskforce is looking at some of the very real barriers that women entrepreneurs face, both in hospitality and more generally. Access to finance is one of the challenges that we have heard back about. A fund is being put together to help women entrepreneurs with that, but we need to do more, and our SMEs strategy will set out our plans in that regard.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

We have heard this morning that the review of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 somehow tramples on Holyrood, but in fact, the Government say:

“Devolved Governments will have greater flexibility to set rules”.

Is there not a danger that this invites the SNP Government to introduce change for the sake of change, and divergence for the sake of divergence, thus damaging trade right across the country?

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

Well, if I am simultaneously being criticised by the SNP and the Conservative party, I am pretty sure that we have got the balance right. The UK Internal Market Act seeks to strike the appropriate balance between giving devolved Governments flexibility on policy and avoiding unnecessary barriers for UK businesses. I believe we have got that balance exactly right.

Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1

John Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s work on the Business and Trade Committee and more generally in pushing the Government to do more on full and fair compensation. On the question of family members, Sir Wyn makes it clear in his report not only that offering a compensation scheme for family members is the right thing to do, but that there will be significant design challenges in how such a scheme is put together. We will work with the independent Horizon compensation advisory board, with claimants’ lawyers and with the campaign group Lost Chances on the design of such a scheme.

My hon. Friend briefly mentioned Capture, as did the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. We are in the process of working with a number of the victims of the Capture scandal and their legal representatives to design an effective compensation process for them. There are again some significant challenges around the availability of evidence, given that the use of the Capture software was before the introduction of the Horizon computer system, and so the amount of evidence available is significantly less. None the less, we are working at pace on the design of such a scheme.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I was aghast to find that the Capture system predates Horizon and goes as far back as 1992; so we are 33 years on. The Minister has touched on the difficulties of getting evidence from that time. Has he made any assessment of how many victims might be involved in this Capture scheme? It looks as though it might be a burgeoning scandal on the scale of the Horizon scheme.

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Business and Trade Committee, too. He gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord Beamish, who campaigned for a considerable period of time to bring the House’s attention to the issue of Capture sub-postmasters. No definitive number exists of how many Post Office branches used Capture. There is a rough estimate that some 13.5% of all Post Office agency branches—roughly 18,000 between 1992 and 2000—used Capture before the Horizon system was rolled out in 1999. Given the lack of evidence, we are very much trying to learn the lessons from some of the Horizon compensation schemes in the way in which we design the Capture scheme. We will take forward 150 cases almost as a pilot process and will take stock at the end of that process to see what further work and further tweaks to the design of the scheme we need to make, so that we can deliver fair redress to all those victims of the Post office scandal, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank my right hon. Friend and the Select Committee for all their work in this area. He knows my view from the evidence that I have given. The significant increase in industrial energy prices under the previous Government is a significant issue for our competitiveness—and yes, that is something that we seek to address.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

When it comes to bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis and the jobs at risk there, there is not an elephant in the room—there is a Chinese dragon. The company is in competition not with commercial organisations from China, but with entities of the Chinese state. What representations will the Secretary of State make to the Prime Minister in an attempt to level a playing field that is currently about as flat as the Galloway hills?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I firmly agree with the hon. Gentleman that a level playing field is not just an economic necessity, but a matter of economic security and production in western economies like our own. Of course, if a company has a specific case to make, it should make the representation to the Trade Remedies Authority directly—I have that power, but it would usually come from industry. If the company has a specific case to make, the hon. Gentleman should encourage it to make that representation.