Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Anne-Marie Trevelyan

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

We Opposition Members have long argued that the Government are not doing enough to support exporters. It is now clear that the former Minister, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), absolutely agrees. He argued that the trade access programme is underfunded and said of it, “We support too few shows, we don’t send enough business, our pavilions are often decent but overshadowed by bigger and better ones from our competitors.” He is absolutely right, is he not?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

It was a pleasure to have the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), in the team; he has been a champion for growing our new tools. Brexit gave us opportunities to own our trade policy and to start to really champion and talk to our businesses about where they can find opportunities across the globe, whether for goods or services. We have a fantastic suite of tools in the export strategy, which we launched in November last year, and we can now really push on with that. As with everything, perhaps Labour Members can tell me where I can rapidly find a great deal more cash to make these measures much more effective. In the meantime, we have put together a fantastic fund that we will continue to use to encourage our businesses to trade.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are topical questions, not “War and Peace” questions. Nick Thomas-Symonds.

Steel Safeguards

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Anne-Marie Trevelyan

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. The extension of safeguards will come as a welcome relief to the steel sector. It is not anti-competitive to provide a level playing field for our steel industry. I also support the decision to exclude Ukrainian steel.

Labour backs our steel communities up and down the country. Our steel sector is foundational for our economy; we must support it, now and as we transition to net zero. However, it is regrettable that resolution of the issue has once again gone to the eleventh hour, just as it did when the present Foreign Secretary extended the safeguards last year, and that the Secretary of State did not even attend the Select Committee this morning to face scrutiny.

Labour has called on the Secretary of State to extend the safeguards, but also to change the law in advance of this latest decision. When the same safeguards were extended last year, Labour called on the Government to introduce emergency legislation, which we would have supported, so that the national interest could be invoked by Ministers in relation to Trade Remedies Authority advice. It is too weighted towards the interests of importers rather than those of domestic industry, and too narrow in scope in that it does not give sufficient weight to issues such as regional employment and support for nationally important industries, and, indeed, the international context for these safeguarding decisions. The United States and the European Union have such measures, and in the case of the EU, the World Trade Organisation has not found the extension of the safeguards to be in breach of its rules. In short, if there is to be a challenge at the WTO, it will be a mess entirely of the Government’s own making.

Although, of course, I thank the Trade Remedies Authority for its work, there are still issues with its framework.

Ministers appeared to agree with Labour’s analysis when, a year ago, the Government announced a wider review of the Trade Remedies Authority framework “as an urgent priority”, in the words of the then International Trade Secretary—the present Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). Well, it has not been a priority for Ministers. That review has disappeared into the long grass, leaving the country in the position we are in today. Had the review been completed, with wider factors eligible for consideration by the TRA, the Secretary of State would be in a much stronger position, just like other major economies that have steel tariffs in place and have had no problems at the WTO. Ministers knew that this issue of extending the safeguards was coming, but they did not plan for it properly, either in terms of our domestic law or internationally, by working with those countries that have extended safeguards without any problems.

Let me also put on record that the last-minute rush to extend safeguards in no way makes up for the shortcomings in support for the steel industry from this Government, and that Labour has set out plans to secure the industry’s future for years to come by investing £3 billion in the transition to net zero over the next 10 years.

May I ask the Secretary of State when that wider review of the Trade Remedies Authority framework will be completed? May I also ask whether she intends to introduce further legislation once the review is completed? Will she publish all the TRA papers relating to this decision, and will she tell us what lessons have been learned from the WTO ruling on the EU safeguards that have been extended? Finally, can she reassure steelworkers and their families that the framework will have been fully reformed before this matter is considered again?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the statement and supporting the Government’s decision to extend the safeguards applying to these five categories of steel, but I do not agree with his claim that this has been done in a rush. The statement has been made today because the rollover is to take place on 1 July, and it was therefore appropriate to make an announcement this week.

The right hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the EU’s choice to maintain the safeguards after it was found not to be in breach of the rules. I was unable to be present at the Select Committee this morning—frustratingly—because I was indeed dealing with the international part of these processes as much I could. I will continue to do so over the next few days in order to ensure that our WTO partners and friends understand the reasons for my decision, which I am pleased to hear is supported by the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party. Obviously we stand ready to take up any concerns that WTO members may have about the decision, but I am certain that it is the right decision, enabling us to avoid as much harm or risk of injury to our steel producers as we can.

The TRA, as an independent organisation, has done an excellent job in examining the challenges faced by the industry. It is also working apace on many issues brought to it by British companies that have concerns, and I am pleased to see it up and running on a daily basis. I meet its representatives regularly, but its submissions to me are made independently, which allows me to make my decisions more broadly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Anne-Marie Trevelyan

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

In recent weeks, the Government announced the suspension of all tariffs and quotas on trade between the United Kingdom and Ukraine. Labour supports that, but may I press the Government to go even further? The political, free trade and strategic partnership agreement between the UK and Ukraine was signed back in 2020. Will the Government commit to updating that agreement to make the scrapping of tariffs and quotas not just a temporary measure but a permanent one to support the Ukraine’s recovery from this appalling illegal invasion in the years ahead?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I am grateful that the Opposition support the Government’s work to help Ukrainian businesses to continue to trade in an incredibly difficult time for them. We will continue to look at how we can both support Ukraine and its population to defend its territory—that will involve ensuring that its economy can thrive—and tighten the sanctions and trade pressures on Russia and those such as Belarus who work alongside it. In the short term, we will bring that forward through the existing FTA. We will also continue to work with the Ukrainians. As I said, I am meeting the Ukrainian ambassador later today to discuss how we can further support that country.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have met the Ukrainian Business and Trade Association, as I am sure has the Secretary of State, and I know that there were already issues with how the quota system worked before the invasion occurred. Having any trade restrictions back in place will only cause further problems for Ukraine’s economic recovery. Any permanent, updated trading arrangement with Ukraine will be supported by Labour, so will the Secretary of State set an urgent date to bring a permanent arrangement into effect to give desperately needed certainty to Ukrainian businesses?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

As I said, we are continuing to work very closely with our Ukrainian counterparts, and after questions the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), will meet the business group to continue those discussions and ensure that we are both targeting in the short term and thinking about long-term ways in which we can support Ukraine and help it recover from this illegal invasion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Anne-Marie Trevelyan

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

On 13 January this year, our UK-India FTA negotiations were launched in Delhi. That first round concluded on 28 January. Discussions were productive and reflected the UK and India’s shared ambition to secure a comprehensive deal that will boost trade for both our nations. The positive discussions laid the groundwork for the UK and India to make positive and efficient progress, and the second round is due to begin on 7 March. I would not wish to give a precise landing zone, but we are working very closely and with optimism and effort on both sides.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

The whole House stands in solidarity with the Ukrainian people, who are defending the right of sovereign nations to live in freedom with courage, determination and fortitude. Labour supports the toughest possible economic sanctions on Putin’s Russian regime, which is carrying out this barbaric and illegal invasion. I welcome the restrictions on banking and financial measures and the export ban on high-end technical equipment and components in electronics, telecommunications and aerospace, but at the same time we can and must do more. Labour Members have called for a total ban on exports of luxury goods to Russia. Will the Secretary of State heed those calls and commit this Government to that export ban on luxury goods so that Putin and his inner circle cannot live a Mayfair lifestyle in Moscow?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

It is a great reassurance for the Ukrainians to know that in all parts of the House, here in the mother of Parliaments, we all stand together supporting them in every way that we can, and, across the world, bring together those voices that say, without exception, that the unprovoked aggression that Putin is showing Ukraine is unacceptable. We will continue to work across Government to make sure that we are using our UK powers as well as working with allies from across the world to tighten the screw so that Putin and his regime will find it more and more difficult not only to sustain their military campaigns but also find that they will no longer have access to their funds. The Foreign Secretary will continue to work on a number of areas. The impact of the SWIFT sanctions will be dramatic and catastrophic for Putin.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do of course appreciate that it is vital to work together with friends and allies, but let me push the Secretary of State on this specific point, because cutting off the supply of luxury products would send a further signal to those in Putin’s Kremlin, who have, by the way, often accumulated wealth and possessions at the expense of the Russian people. We can act on this and we can act now. So will the Secretary of State work with her colleagues across Government, and indeed Governments across Europe who have concerns, whether on clothing, jewellery or diamonds, to get a comprehensive ban in place to stop Putin and his inner circle living in luxury while barbaric, evil acts are perpetrated on the people of Ukraine?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

We will continue to work across Government using all the tools I mentioned, but in the meantime I encourage all those who continue to export to Ukraine to use the Export Support Service if they need that support. We will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to make sure that Putin understands fully that the behaviour he is demonstrating is absolutely outrageous. The Foreign Secretary will lead those discussions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Anne-Marie Trevelyan

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

As I said, it is a Government priority to secure a good deal and ensure that we find the right way forward to get out of the section 232 tariffs, which we are doing at pace. The US Secretary of State for Commerce and I will work to ensure that that imbalance is removed as quickly as possible.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

At the start of last month, I wrote to the Secretary of State about those steel tariffs, which have been in place since 2018 and have already done great damage. In 2017, exports of steel and aluminium to the United States were more than 350,000 tonnes. In 2020, that had fallen to 200,000 tonnes. The situation is urgent, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) set out, the EU gained a competitive advantage on new year’s day, with the US having lifted tariffs for EU member states but not the UK. I welcome the opening of those negotiations, but will the Secretary of State confirm that in advance of those talks the Prime Minister raised the issue personally with President Biden?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I assure the House that I have been extremely robust in moving the issue along since coming into post. I am pleased that we were able to launch these negotiations yesterday. It is important that we sort out and remove those unnecessary and burdensome tariffs on the UK. The UK steel and aluminium industries are not a threat to the US ones. We were working closely at every level to ensure that we find a solution as quickly as possible.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The lifting of the tariffs is vital for jobs and livelihoods across the country, yet the Secretary of State could not confirm that the Prime Minister has raised the issue with President Biden. The truth is that the Prime Minister has been more interested in saving his own job than in saving jobs in the steel sector. The longer the tariffs remain in place, the more damage the Government allow to happen to our steel sector, a foundational industry that is vital for our economy. If the Secretary of State cannot even confirm that the Prime Minister has picked up the phone to the US President about that, are people not right to conclude that the Prime Minister is focused on saving himself and does not care about steelworkers’ jobs?

UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Anne-Marie Trevelyan

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it.

I would say at the outset that we on the Labour Benches are in favour of negotiating trade deals that benefit UK workers and businesses and promote our values around the world, and we will not hold the Government to impossible standards, but we will hold Ministers to what they have promised people they will deliver from the negotiations. Those promises make it even more important that Ministers show strength at the negotiating table and defend UK interests to the utmost. Other countries, in future negotiations, will look at what was conceded to the Australian negotiators and take it as a starting point.

We already have a UK-Japan trade deal that benefits Japanese exporters five times as much as it does UK exporters. A worrying pattern is emerging of not standing up for UK interests. It is what makes the Government’s failure in so many aspects of this deal so costly for the United Kingdom. The Government’s own impact assessment shows a £94 million hit to our farming, forestry and fishing sectors and a £225 million hit to our semi-processed food industry.

The Government claim that they are trying to mitigate that with tariff-free access being phased in over several years, but what is being done is totally inadequate. On beef and sheepmeat, the phasing-in period is 15 years, but the quotas being set by the Government for imports from Australia are far higher than the current level of imports. On beef imports, for example, when Japan negotiated a deal with Australia it limited the tariff-free increase in the first year to 10% on the previous year. South Korea achieved something similar and limited the increase to 7%. But this Government have negotiated a first-year tariff-free allowance of a 6,000% increase on the amount of beef the UK currently imports from Australia. On sheepmeat, in the first year of the deal, the Government have conceded a 67% increase in the tariff-free quota. Why did Ministers not achieve the same as Japan and South Korea?

Why have Ministers failed to ensure that Australian agricultural corporations are not held to the same high standards as our farmers? The Secretary of State mentioned animal welfare standards in her statement, but what the Government have agreed is a non-regression clause. To be clear, that does not mean that the standards will be the same in both countries. That is not fair competition. What will actually happen is that meat produced to far lower animal welfare standards will get tariff-free access to the UK market. So much for the promise of the Secretary of State’s predecessor that the Government had no intention of striking a deal that did not benefit our farmers. Is it any wonder that Australia’s former negotiator at the WTO said:

“I don’t think we have ever done as well as this”?

On climate change, which the Secretary of State mentioned, the COP26 president said, on 1 December, that the deal would reaffirm

“both parties’ commitments to upholding our obligations under the Paris agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5°.”—[Official Report, 1 December 2021; Vol. 704, c. 903.]

But an explicit commitment to limiting global warming to 1.5° is not in the deal. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us what went wrong in those final days. Does the Secretary of State also accept that the failure to include that explicitly in this important deal damages the UK’s ability to lead on climate change on the world stage—[Interruption.] Ministers shout at me, but they told the House on 1 December that it would be included. What went wrong?

The Secretary of State has confirmed that she has asked the Trade and Agriculture Commission, as she is required to do, for advice on the impact of the deal on statutory protections for agriculture. Will she confirm when the Government’s own report will be available?

On scrutiny, why are the Government promising a monitoring report approximately two years after the agreement comes into effect, and every two years thereafter? Why not every year? In addition, the Secretary of State spoke about the impact of trade deals on the whole of the United Kingdom. Can she confirm what steps she will take to address any concerns raised by the devolved Administrations, and how she will formally involve them in the ratification process?

Tariff-free access to our UK market is a prize Ministers should not give away easily. However, looking at the concessions made by this Government, are people not right to worry that the Government are more interested in a quick press release announcing a completed deal than they are in standing up for UK jobs and livelihoods?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman supports international trade, but I come away slightly less than enthused that he is genuine in that, and I hope we will be able to persuade him in the months and years ahead that the Government’s commitment to giving UK businesses the opportunity to share their incredible goods and services around the world is absolutely the focus of the work we are doing. I will try to cover all the points he raised, but if I miss any, I will be happy to write and confirm them.

On quotas, let us be clear—I highlighted this in my statement—that the vast majority of beef and sheepmeat being sold from Australia is going to the Asia-Pacific for the time being, and the quotas have been brought in on a very clear and slow trajectory to allow our farmers to consider the markets. Really importantly, we are looking much more widely, and this is the first of what I hope will be many deals; indeed, this is about not only free trade agreements, but the removal of various barriers to exports—things such as the lamb export ban that has been in place with the US for over 20 years. Just before Christmas, we agreed that it would be removed so that our lamb farmers would be able to export some of the finest lamb in the world—I speak with a personal interest, from Northumbria farmers’ perspective—into US markets for the first time in two decades. So there are some really exciting things coming, and the Australia deal is the first of many deals that will afford our businesses, including our farmers, many new market opportunities.

On standards, the animal welfare chapter is the first one the Australians have ever done. Their commitment to moving forwards—as the right hon. Gentleman says, there is the non-regression piece—and to working with us is really important. In the same way that the environmental chapter does, that commitment shows their very clear policy objective as a nation to move forwards. The environmental chapter is, again, the first they have ever committed to, and in it they have committed to the Paris agreement. As we were in the final throes of the negotiations—I was very much involved, and it was a great honour, at COP26 with the President of COP26—Australia brought forward a net zero commitment, which is something that many have failed to do in Australian politics. That commitment, alongside this environmental chapter, shows a very strong commitment by the Australians to move forward on this issue. We will work together, not only as mutual friends and allies, but with other countries to help them meet their net zero commitment. That is a really important commitment.

This is a broad, liberal agreement; we talk about tariff-free access to the UK, but we also have tariff-free access to Australian markets. This is a broad, liberalising, fair and well-balanced trade deal between partners who want to work together as closely as possible in the decades ahead.