Trade Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]]

I hope you can hear me better this time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to join this debate.

As our debate across the country widens gradually from how to protect our citizens’ health to how to protect their jobs, this Trade Bill is important. Some 30% of our GDP comes directly from our exports, and they in turn generate many of the jobs of all of our constituents. This is especially true in high-value manufacturing and engineering, cyber and services, in all of which there are some great examples clustered around my constituency of Gloucester.

This Bill, which provides the infrastructure for our own trading agreements with the Government procurement and the Trade Remedies Agency, is part of our plan to put our exporters in a position not just to recover but to grow again. Alongside the talks with the EU being handled through the Cabinet Office, and those by the Department of International Trade with the US, Australasia and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, this Bill highlights some of the Government’s strategy to take this forward.

I support all the goals mentioned in the Bill, but at the same time we should be honest about the risks. Global trade is currently in decline. Nationalism and protectionism are on the rise. The backdrop is not as benign as it was for an overall expansion of our trade, growth of exports and expansion of jobs in exporting businesses. We clearly do need to finish the agreements with our allies, such as Singapore, Canada and Japan, with which agreements did already exist. Trying to negotiate separate agreements with separate teams simultaneously with both the US and the EU is high-wire trade diplomacy. I wish our ministerial teams and all the negotiators all good fortune in taking these forward successfully. I believe that many of these things will go down to the wire, and our teams should play tough. They should stick with the game, and we need their success.

It is also worth highlighting the opportunities from the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is an important accession opportunity rather than an FTA. Even though there is some overlap, we should not forget the importance of the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. TPP is not a complete substitute for continuing to grow our business with ASEAN in terms both of exports and bilateral investment. The way in which investment from the Philippines, to pick one small example, has turned around the fortunes of the Glaswegian Scottish whisky blender Whyte and Mackay is a strong case in point when it comes to the advantages of inward investment.

May I encourage the Secretary of State, the Minister who in his place and their teams to focus strongly, as we go forward, on the Continent of Asia both for greater market access through economic dialogues, as well as on FTAs and the TPP, recognising that most of its agricultural commodities and handicrafts are completely complementary to rather than competitive with our own output. Our services, for example those providing health insurance for millions across south-east Asia, are hugely beneficial for those countries as well as for our businesses. Ultimately, that is why this Bill is so important: it is an opportunity not only for us but for our trading partners, and we are right to strongly make the case as to why free trade does matter across the world.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I shall now suspend the House until 4.24 pm.

UK-US Trade Deal

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

As has been pointed out, Scotch whisky has been hit by retaliatory tariffs between the US and the EU. Of course we want to see that settled. We also want to see resolution on the Airbus-Boeing dispute. In future, I would be seeking to avoid such tit-for-tat tariffs, making sure that we have agreement on both sides.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The truth is that these negotiations and those with the EU are vital for business, growth and jobs across the UK. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the timing of the US presidential elections may give a fair wind to the urgency of resolution of her negotiations?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are pushing our full complement of resources into these negotiations, and so is the United States. I am not going to set a deadline on the negotiations but I certainly hope that the prevailing political wind will help us to conclude as early as we can.

Global Britain

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

We cannot forget that this Government have continued to support the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with arms sales, despite the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and despite the Court of Appeal ruling that such exports must cease. The Secretary of State had to come before this House to apologise for breaching the Government’s undertakings to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Commons. Perhaps she might be able to tell us the outcome of the Department’s inquiry into how many breaches of those undertakings there were and how they came about. I will happily give way to her if she can. If she cannot, can the Minister of State, Department for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), when he sums up, at least inform the House of when we might expect the outcome of that report?

I am reminded that we are also waiting for further information on the Department’s investigation into bribery and corrupt practices involving British companies overseas, especially those supported by taxpayers’ funds through UK Export Finance. Can we have an update on that investigation, too?

Earlier this week, it was revealed that Airbus has entered a deferred prosecution agreement in relation to allegations of corrupt practices overseas. This is not the global Britain that we should be projecting: a nation willing to sell arms and equipment to countries with a track record of violating international humanitarian law, where they may be used against innocent civilians, deployed in efforts to oppress citizens or exported through corrupt practices.

It is not just in the arena of international trade that the global order is under threat. NATO, too, is coming under increased strain. There are wrangles on costs and burden sharing, and member states are purchasing weapons systems outside the alliance.

Later this year, the UK will host the crucial United Nations framework convention on climate change—COP26—in Glasgow. This is a truly global responsibility but, sadly, it will also be the moment when America finally pulls out of the Paris agreement, in accordance with the notification it gave two years ago. It will also coincide with the result of the US presidential election. Many countries that have been earnestly engaging in the Paris process, seeking to reduce their own emissions, may come to question their engagement if America continues to be absent from the process.

The pattern of global power is shifting dramatically and swiftly. It is turbocharged by big data, the fourth industrial revolution, artificial intelligence, robotics and the internet of things. Above all, geopolitics will be affected by the energy transformation as the world moves towards a net-zero carbon economy.

From coal and whale oil to crude and shale, the geopolitical map has been moulded by the need to control energy supplies. Distribution pinch points such as the Suez canal and the strait of Hormuz have been flash points for conflict, and the projection of global power has relied on the ability to maintain security of energy supply. The inevitability of this shift is not simply due to the rapidly declining cost of renewables, or even the health and climate problems associated with fossil fuels.

Renewables, in many forms, are widely dispersed in most countries, promoting domestic self-sufficiency. They are not stocks that are used and then depleted; they are flows that are constantly recharged and so require less transportation and have no choke points. They lend themselves to decentralisation of production and consumption, and they can more easily be deployed at a local community scale. They also have marginal costs that approach to zero. So just as the geographic concentration of coal, oil and gas moulded our political landscape since the industrial revolution, the dispersed nature of renewable energy will erode those traditional patterns in a new global world. It is not clear that the Government have thought through the geopolitical implications of this energy transformation: which countries are likely to forge ahead and leapfrog the old technology; and which will fail to transform their subsoil assets of oil and gas into surface assets of human social and political capital quickly enough. It is often said that the stone age did not end because of a lack of stone, and nor will the fossil fuel age end because of a lack of oil, gas or coal. It will end with a lot of stranded assets that could pose severe financial risks that a global Britain must guard against.

The Government have sought to congratulate themselves repeatedly on our domestic progress towards net zero, but this has been achieved through the systematic exporting of our carbon emissions and an explicit policy of supporting activities overseas that we no longer support at home. I therefore welcome what the Prime Minister said:

“there’s no point in the UK reducing the amount of coal we burn if we then trundle over to Africa and line our pockets by encouraging African states to use more of it.”

He is right, and that is why we stopped UK Export Finance funding for coal back in 2002 and why we stopped official development assistance finance for coal back in 2012. What I want to hear from the Minister is an update, the logical corollary of what the Prime Minister said, which is that there is no point in the UK reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn if we then trundle over to Brazil or Africa or India or anywhere and line our pockets by encouraging those countries to use more oil and gas.

UKEF has helped to finance oil and gas projects that, when complete, will emit 69 million tonnes of carbon a year. That is nearly a sixth of the total annual carbon emissions of the UK itself. Global Britain cannot be Janus-faced, with domestic virtue masking the international promotion of the very policies we say we want to prevent, freeing ourselves to embrace a net-zero future while locking other developing countries into fossil fuel dependency.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

In the past 25 minutes, we have heard a lot of virtuous noises about renewable energy which we can all agree with. We know that the hon. Gentleman is against defence and security exports, against the US and against Saudi Arabia. He is against a whole number of things, and global Britain in terms of trade seems to mean for the Labour party “lining our pockets”. What is the Labour party’s vision of the role of the UK in the world? Does he not see enormous opportunities for us in working with continents such as Africa and Asia?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has sought to intervene in that way, because that quote about lining pockets is from his own Prime Minister, so I not think he does himself any credit. The fact that he has not listened to the positive things that I have been saying is his problem, not mine.

UK Export Finance plays a significant role in enabling fossil fuel projects by removing risk and sending safe signals to investors—these are the wrong signals. The Government’s dangerous approach risks leaving the UK taxpayer on the hook, financing stranded assets as the world rapidly moves away from fossil fuels. That is the point: this is a problem for us and for our economic security in the future. That is precisely what Mark Carney, Bloomberg and many others in the financial taskforce have tried to point out.

Two years ago, I called for the UK to end all fossil fuel projects supported by UKEF and to focus on our renewable technologies instead. Will the Government recognise that that is what a confident, outward-facing, global Britain needs to do? The UK has not yet depleted entirely its stock of fossil fuels, but its future does not lie so much in their further exploitation as in our capacity to use digital technology, smart grids and big data to place ourselves at the vanguard of this energy transition.

Global Britain cannot be backward looking. We must look forward to new opportunities and the repositioning of global powers. We must harness our unique skills and capabilities, and leverage them to take advantage of emerging economies and emergent technological solutions. We need a coherent industrial strategy that ensures a diverse economic base and a skilled workforce capable of meeting the emergent opportunities of a very different but precarious world. We need a proper, robust, independent, trade defence measure, and we need a Government that defend British interests and stand up against unfair practices overseas, including tariffs imposed on the likes of ceramics, which the Secretary of State has talked about. We need a democratic approach to trade agreements that have the early buy-in of affected stakeholders, businesses, trade unions, civil society, devolved Administrations and the elected representatives of the British people.

We cannot seek to make progress on the new issues affecting trade, digital economies and cross-border data flows, the treatment of bundled goods and services, the enforcement of intellectual property rights and so forth until we move forward. We must demonstrate the effectiveness of the rules-based system, work to progress and re-establish the appellate body of the World Trade Organisation, but we must also reform its structures to deliver the global order that is more just and more equitable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady is right. There is an uneven playing field that needs to be addressed. Why is it that Facebook, Amazon and eBay cannot operate in China, but Alibaba, Huawei and others can operate here?

The scale of China is simply enormous. Alibaba is the size of eBay and Amazon put together. Huawei sells more mobile phones than Apple. The scale of it and the injection of cash from the Chinese Government is colossal, which is why we need to have a serious conversation. Given the importance that America, Australia and New Zealand place on this, we need a solution. I know that Huawei’s involvement is in the non-core elements of the 5G network and has been capped. But we made the F-35 stealth fighter—that was essentially the Five Eyes community coming together to make state-of-the-art equipment. Let us do the same with 5G. We should not just turn to Cisco, Ericsson or Nokia and say, “Please catch up with Huawei.” They will not be able to do it. We need the Prime Minister to talk with President Trump and say, “Over the next five years, let’s create the 5G and 6G capability that will allow us to have our own identity.”

If we do not, I predict that there will be a splintering of the internet. The rules that China is adopting and enforcing for its own people and for countries that use its technologies mean that there will be two operations and two versions of the economy. We cannot be caught on the wrong side of the argument in history, so we must develop our own western capabilities.

[Richard Graham]

My right hon. Friend has made a number of great points about technology and how we and our Five Eyes partners need to develop a serious alternative. Does he also agree that there is a danger in the House sometimes of criticising almost everything that China does? To give one small example, when the Chinese automotive company Geely bought the London Taxi Company, it converted the engines to electric and is now exporting them to France and the Netherlands from the UK. It is a good example of what Chinese investment can achieve that is positive for the UK.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to him for his knowledge, expertise and desire to educate the rest of us on the importance of what China is doing. There is a lot of duality in what China provides. It is providing some of the greenest capabilities in the world, but it is investing more in coal—it is building hundreds more coal-fired power stations at the very time when we need to wean ourselves off coal.

Militarily, I am also concerned. China’s space budget alone is £7 billion a year. Twenty years ago, its military budget was the same as ours. Today, it is five times that amount. Its navy grows the size of our Navy every single year. Those are my concerns in the longer term, and that is why we need an adult conversation with China, to work out what international rules we should be following.

Finally, I turn to the review that we will conduct. This is a pivotal moment for the UK to recognise and take stock of the threats that we face. We need a sober assessment of how the world is changing and an honest review of our own capabilities. Our battle tank is 20 years old; it needs an upgrade. Our aircraft carriers are fantastic, but no further investment in the Navy means that the rest of the surface fleet has been depleted. In the Gulf war, we had 36 fast-jet squadrons; today we have six. We need confirmation of our capabilities and our aspirations. What role do we seek to play on the international stage? We then need to commit to what is needed to get there, which will require an increase in our defence budget. We need to upgrade if we want to play that role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Today’s debate comes at a crossroads in our island’s story. In the 1950s, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson said:

“Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.”

The role we eventually found for half a century was in the European Union, and now our citizens have decided in aggregate that we leave the European Union and forge a new destination. What is that to be?

Global Britain, at the moment, is a slogan in search of a strategy, and it is the duty of this Government and all of us to bring it alive. I welcome the announcement of the security, defence and foreign policy review and lots of work in other Departments, and I hope that the Budget will pivot to boosting Departments that can deliver a more global Britain. The good news is that we have most of the ingredients already. It is now about the recipe and how we bring them together.

Here are some of the key elements beyond language, law, history and the Commonwealth. Domestically, we are the top destination for foreign direct investment in Europe. Last year, we had more investment in technology than the US or China. We have a strong domestic starting point for engagement with the world. Abroad, as a result of a significant change made by this Government, some £12 billion of funds used through the Department for International Development has achieved remarkable things—since 2015, some 76 million children have been immunised, and some 60 million women, children and girls have benefited from nutrition programmes.

We now have in the Department for International Trade, so recently created, more trade negotiators than the US Trade Representative. We have exports that have risen 22% in the last three years—now over £654 billion—and that are contributing 30% or almost a third of our GDP, up from 27%. We now have in our diplomacy 14 new posts and, I believe, the greatest global diplomatic coverage of any nation in the world. On issues such as the environment, we are now hosting the climate change summit, COP26, in Glasgow.

When it comes to sport and culture, we are leading in so many ways, whether in films, TV, the premier league, singers—you name it. Our values have never been forgotten. We are leading on Christians in danger, media freedoms and girls in education, as well as the campaign against rape as a weapon of war, as mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). So we do have much to build on.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Office overseas staffing department has been cut by over 1,000 staff in the last 30 years? Does he agree with me that, whatever the future holds for Britain post Brexit, we must ensure that the Foreign Office—the diplomatic service and, specifically, its consular staff—have the best possible resource and training, so that when families lose loved ones abroad or are constituents are held against their will or are ill-treated abroad, the Foreign Office is properly resourced, staffed and skilled to make sure that our constituents and our citizens are looked after and represented?

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Member makes a good point. As a former consul and diplomat, it is hard for me to argue against additional resources for the Foreign Office. I would say that the figures she mentions I think relate to a reduction in the numbers of British diplomats deployed overseas, but during that time there has also been a considerable growth in the numbers of locally employed members of high commissions and embassies. There is a balance there, and local knowledge is incredibly useful as well. She is right, however, and I did say earlier that I hope the Budget will see a boost for all Departments that can deliver global Britain.

It is not just as the United Kingdom that we have an overall aggregate global role. If we look at every constituency in the country, there are huge links between our businesses, or indeed our hospitals, and overseas organisations. In my constituency of Gloucester alone, we export to China alone valves for the oil and gas sector, the cylinders that go into every Dyson vacuum cleaner, marine engines and the landing gear for every Airbus—and we export tea to China. That story of engagement is replicated across the towns and cities of the entire United Kingdom.

[Bob Seely]

I want to make a point about pay and conditions. We produced a “Global Britain” study last year, and one of the things that surprised me is that ambassadors do not always have line management of all staff in embassies, so if people are from DFID or the MOD, it is more difficult for them to fall under a cohesive and integrated approach to management. People were also on different salaries for doing the same job, very often to the detriment of the Foreign Office. It would be very good if, in the foreign and defence review, these things were ironed out, because it would be an encouragement to folks in the Foreign Office and actually valuable for them.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. All I would say at this point is that the most important thing for us overseas is to have one HMG—one presence of Her Majesty’s Government’s representatives—and the boss should always be the ambassador or the high commissioner, regardless of which home Departments individuals in that embassy or high commission originally came from.

That is part of the projection of our values, and our role in and our contribution to the world, which we do need to look at as we move forward: very much part of Europe, but no longer a member of the European Union; very much part of the international rules-based order, which we played such a large part in establishing; and an outward-looking, independent nation—working in partnership with many others and many organisations, but making our own decisions in the best interests of the United Kingdom and in line with our values. Contrary to what one or two Opposition Members said earlier, those actually are valuable and are precious to the world. Those of us who have been a Prime Minister’s trade envoy will have experienced that across the world.

That means working closely with our neighbours, especially on security issues and European borders, and constraining Russian expansionism. That is our traditional role in maintaining the balance of power on our continent. It also means taking different views where we need to, and the same will be true of our relationship with today’s superpowers, the United States and China. We will be making decisions, whether on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, 5G telecoms, or free trade agreements, that are right for the United Kingdom.

For the past few years, the Labour party has appeared to be against business, international trade, defence and security, and against so many countries who are close allies. It has never spoken up for the global opportunities, and largely sees only corruption and villains. Unlike that, we believe in the huge opportunities and benefits to this nation from manufacturing as well as services, and from apprentices in both. We believe in creativity, and in opportunities to export our education, satellites and pharmaceuticals. That, I believe, is the opportunity that lies ahead.

We will need some changes to help bring that alive, so perhaps I can make a few recommendations to which the Minister can respond. We need a Foreign Secretary who has overall responsibility for £12 billion of development, as well as for diplomacy. We need the Departments for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and for International Trade to work more closely together, and with MPs, to hold “Global Britain” exporting seminars in every constituency across the land. We must focus on attracting key foreign technology investors and capital, and I welcome the Government’s decision on visas for scientists. We must continue to lead in aerospace and digital businesses, and I welcome the commitment to working with our Five Eyes partners on telecoms alternative technologies.

Above all—you would expect me to say this, Madam Deputy Speaker—we must look more closely at what we can do with Asia, and at opportunities for closer engagement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the possibility of acceding to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the opportunities for working more closely with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore, our Commonwealth partners, on defence, training and preparations. We must help nations with their cyber and finance requirements, and create huge numbers of jobs in those nations through our own expertise. One British insurer alone has 275,000 agents working in Indonesia. Those are franchises and independent, small Indonesian businesses. Those are the opportunities for us. We can take them forward and be a great power for good. We can make global Britain a real strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely]

Let me be fair to this Government. They have not been in power for long and we have had 15 years of Huawei effectively coming into our country by subterfuge. I think there is a role for foreign lobbying, but it is doing damage and we need a foreign lobbying Act, which I hope to work on. To be fair to this and the previous Government, their telecoms review at least tries to bring order to something that has been driven by a price-dumping strategy. I will come on to that later. I want to make progress so that I do not talk for any more than another five minutes.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend poses a bigger-picture question about the role of democracy in today’s world and the threat from authoritarian regimes. Does he agree with me—I should declare an interest as chairman of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—that we need to create a democracy fund that spends more money and uses our influence more effectively in encouraging and helping nations that, like us, have difficulties in making sure that democracy is working as well as it possibly can?

[Bob Seely]

That is an excellent idea, because we are a values leader in this world. I do not at all negate the role of soft power; I just think we need to get the integration of hard and soft power right.

I will crack on. I would like to know from the Government what our network architecture is likely to look like. How can we think about how edge and core functions will work in our 5G in five or 10 years’ time? Moreover, if we were red-teaming this, we would need to ask how non-trusted, high-risk vendors could manipulate future network design. If there is a realistic chance of them being able to do so, that would be potentially damaging.

We have been told that a non-spy agreement with China is feasible. It is not. Huawei has offered one. Article 7 of China’s national intelligence law states:

“All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with the law”.

That is pretty cut and dried. How will this Government guarantee the security of networks when non-British passport holders have access to them, given the nature of the Chinese state and Chinese law? This is not about being anti-Chinese; it is about questioning the role of the Chinese Communist party and the one-party state.

I question the claim that the security services are happy, and not only because Sir Richard Dearlove wrote the foreword to our report on Huawei a few months ago. I think there are ways of phrasing things to get the answers one wants from the security services. Much as I respect the National Cyber Security Centre, I am concerned about some of the advice it is giving, only because I hear very impressive people in different positions saying different things and I do not believe it is possible to give certainty for five and 10 years ahead. By building a 5G network now, we are effectively committing to allowing the Chinese state to introduce 6G and 7G in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time.

We are told that this enables market provision. It does not. Huawei came to power by, in effect, stealing the intellectual property of Nortel, a Canadian company, leading to its collapse. Considerable allegations have been made. In future weeks we might hear more—who knows?—about the nature of the deals that Huawei strikes with western telcos and about accusations of price dumping and other things. More generally, Huawei is funded by the China Development Bank, to the tune of $10 billion in loans and a further $100 billion in credit lines, which means that it can simply undercut any commercial fair price offered by a western telco. That puts permanent pressure on Samsung, Fujitsu, Nokia and Ericsson.

About 10 years ago, Huawei had 5% of the market. Now, China collectively has about 40% of the market. On the current trajectory, in 10 or 20 years’ time there will be no market apart from that dominated by ZTE and Huawei, and Nokia and Ericsson will go the same way as companies such as Nortel, about which we no longer hear. That is cause for concern. It is simply a myth that this enables market provision. Indeed, it limits it.

We are told that there are no alternatives, but yes, there are. There would be short-term delays and additional cost—there is no question about that—but this is a question of balance. I look forward to having a grown-up discussion when the Bill comes before the House.

I will not dwell on the human rights argument—I want to be respectful of people’s time—apart from saying that there have been allegations from ASPI and others that Huawei has worked on the oppressive surveillance kit in Xinjiang province.

Next, it is claimed that the quality of Huawei’s work is high. Well, the Huawei Cell says that the coding is sloppy. Indeed, Infinite State, a tech company based in the United States, found sloppiness in Huawei’s source code after analysing 1.5 million files, but also said that on multiple occasions Huawei coders had disguised unsafe functions, and that too concerns me.

In general, I question the reassurances that we have been given. What positive action can we take? If I were suggesting stuff to a Government whom I strongly support, what would I say? First, we need public debate. Australia had nearly a year of public debate about this, because it raises significant issues such as data privacy, human rights and our attitude to human rights abusers abroad, and whether the Magnitsky Act could apply to Huawei if it is used to supply oppressive equipment in other parts of the world.

There are significant practical, economic and moral implications that have simply not been discussed. We have been getting it wrong for about 15 years, and our answer is “We have got it wrong, so let us just brush it under the carpet.” Huawei is hiring the great and good for its board, and a former senior Government information officer is oiling Whitehall to make it safe for Huawei. All those points raise significant ethical, political and economic questions.

We could try separating Huawei in the same way that BAE Systems in the United States is an entirely different company from BAE Systems here. We have not done that. Why not? A public inquiry into how we have messed this up so badly might also be a good idea. My preferred option, however—and I would love the Government to consider it—is an international conference to agree trusted vendor status for the free states of the world, the liberal democracies, so that they could have trust in the future building of a critical national infrastructure. Machine-to-machine communication through 5G will revolutionise and become the core of our communication society.

Finally, we need a foreign lobbying Act. We know that Huawei’s lobbying operation in this country is very well funded and very extensive, but apart from that we know little about it. I think that, for the purpose of good government and, indeed, leaving the European Union—I keep reminding myself that we are doing that tomorrow, which is wonderful—we need more transparency, not less, and we need more accountability, not less. That is one of the reasons why I chose to vote to leave the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

As a result of devastating African swine fever, 130 million pigs have recently been slaughtered in China, which is home to half the world’s pigs. Is this not a great opportunity for my right hon. Friend, who did so much to open this market to British pig farmers, to promote the merits of British products from our pigs, including, of course, the unrivalled Gloucester Old Spot?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right. I was very proud to open the market for pigs trotters into China when I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Market access is very important. We have seen a massive increase in pork exports to China over the past five years. He is right that our high welfare standards and quality produce are valued across the world. There are lots of new opportunities, including for the Gloucester Old Spot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I know that the hon. Lady takes an interest in this topic and has a prison in her constituency. Alongside the enhanced Through the Gate service specification, resettlement planning is led by the probation officer in the community where the offender is to be released, making it easier to connect into local services such as women’s centres. We also want greater involvement from voluntary organisations with the expertise to support offenders leaving prison.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Ministers will be aware of the campaigning work done by Bishop Rachel Treweek of Gloucester and others to encourage non-custodial sentences for women, and the Minister for Women, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), visited the Nelson Trust in my constituency, which does so much to help ex-prisoners. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), will know that many women who leave prison do not have a suitable home to go. What more can we do to provide suitable accommodation for such women?

[Wendy Morton]

As I have set out, we have the enhanced Through the Gate service specification, but I am more than happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend. I would be interested to know a little bit more about the particular project to which he referred.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Gentleman raises important issues that are being considered by both my hon. Friend the Minister for Women and our colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions, and the new Secretary of State is particularly attuned to them. I will ask Ministers to write to the hon. Gentleman to update him, and I will pass on his concerns today.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

T4. In my constituency, the sex worker outreach project run by the admirable Nelson Trust is doing really good work to help women to come off the streets and lead very different lives. What support can the Government provide to help these kinds of community services? Does my right hon. Friend agree that reducing the number of women in prison on short sentences would help this kind of rehabilitation?

[The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)]

I recall the visit that I made with my hon. Friend to see how his local community was looking after vulnerable people in Gloucester. We believe that people who want to leave prostitution should be given every opportunity to find routes out, and this is why we are spending more than £2 million across the Government to support prostitutes and sex workers who are at risk of abuse and exploitation. Indeed, we have a piece of work at the moment involving ongoing research conducted by the University of Bristol into what prostitution in the 21st century looks like, precisely so that we can address the issues that that research identifies.

EU Trade Agreements: Replication

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. On the UK’s trade, 48% of our trade is with the European Union and 52% with the rest of the world. Of the rest of the world trade, around 11% occurs under EU FTAs. Of the 40 or so agreements, five represent 76% of the 11%, and the bottom 20 represent less than 0.8% of 1%. Therefore, there is very clear advantage in getting those larger agreements across the line first, and we are making excellent progress in that regard.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

There are two groups in this House who underestimate the value of free trade agreements. The first includes those Opposition Front Benchers who did not vote for them in the first place and whose leader believes that free trade agreements benefit only multinationals at the expense of everyone else. He should try explaining that on the workshop floor of some of the small and medium-sized manufacturers in my constituency of Gloucester that export around the world. The second group are some Conservative Members who believe that leaving the EU with no deal will be no problem. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the event of no deal, the tariffs that will come into play with the EU will be devastating for farmers and manufacturers and all the rest of the 148,000 companies that export only to the EU and that the simplest way to take this risk off the table is for everybody to get behind the Government’s withdrawal agreement Bill and make sure that all these deals are rolled over without problem?

[Dr Fox]

It seems that the country is caught between the irrational pessimism of those who fail to be reconciled to the referendum result and believe that everything to do with Brexit will be disastrous for the UK and those who are irrationally optimistic that it would be no problem whatever to leave the European Union with no deal. The truth is that we would be better off with a deal, which is why the Government want to get that deal with the European Union across the line. I still urge Opposition Members to support it. If we do not achieve it, we will end up with the uncertainties that they have identified today.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I have already given way to the hon. Lady and I will not do so again.

This was further confirmed by the last general election in which the two main parties, comprising over 80% of the total votes cast, promised to respect the referendum result. Let us imagine that a second referendum were held in which the remain side won, perhaps with a narrow majority but with a lower turnout. Leave supporters like me could well begin demanding a third referendum, a best of three. Where would the process actually end? We have had a people’s vote and we need to respect the people’s vote. Another referendum would not settle the issue or heal our divisions—quite the opposite. It would further divide our already fractious country at a time when we need to come together.

There is also the constitutional issue. If we overturn this referendum result, we will be setting a precedent that could be applied to other referendums too. Furthermore, a second referendum would create prolonged, not diminished, political and economic uncertainty.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Is not the point about the future trade relationship and the opportunities for global Britain that without this withdrawal agreement there can be no negotiation with Europe, whether to achieve a Canada-plus solution or any other solution? The danger with no deal is that without an agreement at the beginning, we would never be able to structure a future free trade agreement with the European Union.

[Dr Fox]

As usual, my hon. Friend makes a very good point very clearly. There are, across the House, a number of potential destinations that Members want to see: a Norway-type option, EEA-plus, a Canada-style agreement or FTA-plus. What they all have in common is one thing: there needs to be a withdrawal agreement before we are actually able to have any of them. That is why this particular deal is so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I know that it was well meant, but I speak as someone who eventually resigned because we had to make a £12 billion cut to the welfare budget, and we are now saying that we will spend £39 billion on something else. I think that those two bear a slightly different comparison. I will simply say that there is nothing small about £39 billion. I honestly believe that one of the reasons we voted to leave was to take back control and get most of our money back from the European Union, and to use it for the sort of things that my hon. Friend might well be suggesting. As I said earlier, in principle, and providing that we get something really good from the EU, I am not against meeting our requirements. However, I am against doing that without any commitment whatsoever. That is where my major, and I hope gentle, criticism of my hon. Friend lies.

My third point is about state aid. This issue has not really raised its head much, and those on the Front Benches might want to pay attention. A lot of people think that state aid is just about a few provisions stopping people giving their domestic industries a head start. I have always had a concern about this in democratic terms. I know that many on my side will say, “Oh, it’s terrible; we’re not in favour of giving industries a boost.” Well, we might not be, but we live in a democracy and in reality, others might wish to pitch for a different position. I accept that fully, but I really hope that the public never vote for that. I believe we have a better provision, but there is a democratic problem involved.

However, that is not my main issue, which is the width with which state aid is now being interpreted. I made a speech about this back in 1993 or 1994, in which I said that the Commission knew very well that no matter what it did and failed to get, the Courts would mop up after it because the Courts were bound by one thing and one thing only, which was always to find in favour of ever closer union. Of course they are; that is what they were set up to do. That is very clear, but many in this House do not seem to recognise that fact. The Courts always pick up the pieces. We have only to look at social security spending on people coming into the UK under freedom of movement. Originally, that spending was never in the treaty. It is the Courts, through a whole number of cases, that have widened the provisions to allow those coming into the UK to claim benefits exactly in line with people living in this country. That was not done by the Commission or the Council; it was the Courts.

That is exactly what is happening now. The Commission has had real problems with tax harmonisation. That is its objective for the eurozone and generally for the European Union. The Courts are now entering this area and using the provisions on state aid to find against countries that find new tax advantages. That is where they intend to go, and when we read the summaries of some of the judgments, we can see that they are already moving into this area. I therefore say to colleagues who think that it is all right to sit back passively for two years that there is already a plan to drive that process harder. I have also heard that eight of the 12 people responsible for monitoring the EU’s provisions on state aid have now been moved to cover the UK in the two-year period before we strike a trade deal. I warn my colleagues on the Government Benches that we should be careful what we wish for, because those state aid provisions will bite us on tax harmonisation and of some of the changes we might wish to make in future Budgets.

I will conclude now so that others may speak. We have had a series of scare stories about a whole series of problems that could arise if we do not strike an arrangement. I want to have an arrangement—don’t get me wrong; I absolutely want it—and I think that the Government are in the right place to want to get it as well. I just do not think that this arrangement delivers on the minimum that we require to be able to negotiate and deliver a proper trade deal.

I say to my hon. Friends that we really need to pack up this idea about a total disaster that keeps being pumped around. As my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary said from the Dispatch Box today and has made clear before, he does not believe that a no-deal Brexit would be a disaster; he believes that we will manage our way through it one way or another.

The other day we were told that there would be huge queues at Dover because Calais, according to the contingency executive, will have to check every single lorry, taking 10 minutes each time. What did we hear from the man who runs Boulogne and Calais? He said, “We have no plans to and will not check every lorry. We will do nothing more than we are doing at the moment. Any phytosanitary checks will be done 12 km behind the border.” Those on the continent do not want what we say we fear, because it would damage them and their business, and they know that they would lose it. That is just one example of some of the nonsense that has gone on with “Project Fear” over the past few years. It has been constantly banged on about. Far from making people concerned, however, it has made people angry about what politicians do to try to threaten and worry them. Let us treat the people like grown-ups and talk about matters properly instead of trying to frighten them.

[Richard Graham]

My right hon. Friend says that his concerns over supporting the Government’s deal and the withdrawal agreement Bill relate to the position that they would leave us in for future free trade agreements. However, without the withdrawal agreement Bill, there can be no future trade agreements. What is his position on that?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My position is that we go back and get a better deal. That is the reality, because I believe that that is how the EU works. The EU got everything it wanted first time round, but if it knows that we are not going to take this deal, it will have to discuss it. When I visited the European Commission and met Mr Barnier and Sabine Weyand and their team, it became clear, before we signed up to this deal, that they were fully expecting to take things further once pressed hard—that is to say, they expected that this deal would not pass. They have been waiting for this vote to know exactly where they are going. I genuinely think that the Government will be in a better place to go and say, “Look, this stuff that you’ve given us and this stuff that we’ve got is simply not acceptable, and we will not get it through.” Therefore, if we genuinely want to reach an agreement—I believe that the EU does—we must strike a harder deal with them, and they have to accept that and will do so. That is where we are.

Back in 1992, I realised that the plans under the Single European Act and Maastricht were taking us to a place that we would never be in, because this country would never accept that it would eventually be fully locked into a supranational organisation that was taking powers away from individual Parliaments. That is why I feel upbeat about the referendum vote. I am tired of being told that it was some sort of disaster or accident. When I campaigned to leave, I genuinely and passionately believed that this country would do incredibly well whatever the arrangements. I just wish that many more in this House would stand up for those who voted to leave genuinely—not stupidly and not because they hated people, but because they wanted something to change. They wanted to take back control of their country, and that is what I want to do here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Our duty in debating the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 this evening is not to focus on what we do not want, but to work out what we will support, in order to ensure that we respect the result of the referendum to leave the EU, but in a way that does not inadvertently cause damage and that can identify and realise future opportunities. The Act is the end of the beginning—what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster called the “unavoidable gateway”, whether to a Canadian, Norwegian, Chequers or any other destination. It resolves crucial human issues of citizen rights, obligations and Northern Ireland, on which I have co-authored an amendment with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire). The Act can also lead to stronger legislation on issues precious to many of us, including colleagues such as the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn): human rights; gender equality; workers’ rights; and environmental standards, where pledges have already been made. It means that this House will be able to decide whether we stick with EU manufacturing standards, go further or deviate, understanding the potential impact on frictionless trade. In the future, it will be we who decide whether to take more REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—legislation or further insurance sector rules. We will decide on immigration; as the Home Secretary said, there will be no limits on skilled labourers and there will be seasonal arrangements for agricultural workers. Those are the opportunities that this deal gives us, alongside a transition that provides for certainty before future change. It will not be easy—we have surely learned that already—but there can be advantages for these stubborn, independent-minded islands that are used to maintaining the balance of power in Europe against centralist tendencies.

Some of my colleagues prefer a no-deal solution. They believe that there is a way, as an invitation this evening put it, to open up the political space to take a different approach, but the nation’s employers simply do not agree. I have spoken to manufacturers big and small, to retail and services companies, to the university in my constituency and to many other traders and investors as the longest-serving of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys in the House of Commons, working with one of the fastest growing regions in south-east Asia, and not one has told me that no deal is the best way forward. Instead, they tell me that fear of uncertainty is holding back investment, jobs and apprenticeships and beginning to lose them contracts. Are they all scaremongering—the FSB, Business West, the NFU, Gibraltar, the Falklands, or even a family-owned Gloucester SME, which told me on Friday that

“customers and jobs will go elsewhere, and we are 14 weeks away from the most damaging impact on our economy for at least a generation”?

They, plus the supply chains of the aerospace, automotive and cyber sectors, cannot all be wrong. I do not believe that, faced with this evidence, any Government could take the risk of no deal, or that this Parliament would ever vote for no deal.

If we are to succeed in legislating for the withdrawal agreement—a genuine Brexit—Conservative and DUP Members, and others on the Opposition Benches who, like the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), realise that there is no magical, better Labour Brexit to be negotiated, will all have to pull together and support this pragmatic compromise. If we cannot do that, as the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said, some cross-party grouping will come together for a solution to gain a majority, but in all likelihood that will be a deal less attractive to those who voted leave and to those who compare it with staying in the EU, and that could lead to an even more divisive second referendum. To paraphrase Churchill on the USA, I hope that this Parliament will do the right thing after exhausting all other options over the next few days and support and pass the withdrawal agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

We spend a great deal of time doing so, and in fact I was deeply encouraged by the welcome that we received for the export strategy from the FSB, the chambers, the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry, who do not share the Labour party’s anti-trade, anti-capitalist, anti-wealth agenda. The Labour party increasingly seems to see the model it prefers for Britain as the Venezuelan model.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

5. What progress his Department has made on the UK’s potential accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)]

We are preparing ourselves to be able to take a decision on potential CPTPP accession in the light of the ongoing public consultation and the process of accession for new members being established. We are also undertaking further work to understand the opportunities that CPTPP presents, including by engaging with existing members.

[Richard Graham]

I share the Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for the potential of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and greater trade with the countries of the Pacific rim in general. Will he confirm that nothing in the proposals currently being negotiated with the EU would prevent our being able to accede to the TPP? Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is of course entirely for Malaysia to decide its role in the TPP, both its involvement and our accession would be good for all involved?

[Dr Fox]

The CPTPP states currently account for more than 13% of global GDP—they comprise a combined GDP of around $11 trillion. Their economies are projected to grow to more than $14 trillion by 2023. It is self-evident that if Britain is able to take advantage of growing markets, a country that has a much more ambitious export strategy can benefit hugely. Malaysia will be able to take advantage of the improvement in our bilateral trade.

Trade Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are very constrained for time, and I know that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—great diplomat of international renown that he is—will not absorb the House’s attention for more than five minutes, but we will savour those five minutes.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Minister’s announcement that today’s debate is about continuity and transparency, but the truth is that it is laced with a cocktail of amendments with very different agendas. The two most popular agendas represent attempts to lock us into either the or a customs union, as in new clause 5, or to secure a customs union were the negotiations to fail to secure frictionless FTAs, which is in new clause 18. That would be the clearest invitation to the European Union to refuse those negotiations. The third one—[Interruption.] Be patient.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Forgive me; because I was engaged in discussions at the Chair, I did not notice that. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) must focus with razorlike precision on the matters in this group. If he does not wish to do so, he must wait until we are discussing another group. If he can find a way of delicately relating his concerns to the group with which we are dealing, rather than one with which we are not, that would be in order.

[Richard Graham]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) had waited but two seconds, he would have realised that I was precisely there with my third illustration of today’s agendas: the attempts to avoid free trade agreements altogether, of which new clause 3 is the most striking example, or to scrutinise them to death, as set out in new clause 20.

I wish to linger on new clause 3. It may appear to those outside this House that it contains reasonable requirements. It states that Ministers of the Crown should lay a draft of the negotiating mandate, setting out fields, sectors, principles, limits and desired outcomes of agreements that may well be an exact and absolute rollover of existing agreements that were negotiated decades ago. The truth is that this is the “we do not want any free trade agreements” clause. It would frankly be absurd to pretend that we could ever get anything done, given the requirement to ensure that

“between each round of negotiations”

of some 40 agreements

“all documents relating to the negotiations have been made available for scrutiny by select committees”,

unnamed and unnumbered. Those who drafted that new clause would clearly have been against the anti-corn laws of 1832 and against Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”. They would be against this country actually receiving anything at all in trade, specifically if we manufactured or produced it here in this country. Micro-management would run riot, and it would mean the end of all free trade agreements for all time. I therefore completely reject that approach.

My second point is that what we are talking about tonight ultimately comes down to difficult decisions about what type of nation we want to be when we leave the European Union. It has always been clear to me that if we are to leave the EU, we cannot stay in the or a customs union. It is bizarre that some Opposition Members do not see that our inability to decide our trade preferences, particularly with the poorer nations of the world that are currently disfavoured under the common external tariff regime, could not be significantly improved by having our own free trade agreements.

The next point—the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) is a classic example of this particular school of thought—is that we will not be able to negotiate effective free trade agreements on our own once we have left the European Union and the customs union. I urge all those in this House who believe that to look closely at the potential of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the warm interest from all those involved in that complicated and important agreement in an area of vital growth to the world. The opportunity for us there is significant. We should not listen to those who put up new clauses that would get rid of free trade agreements forever, and we should seize the opportunities that leaving the customs union will offer us if we are to leave the European Union, which we are.

[Geraint Davies]

I will be brief. The Trade Bill is of course the latest part of the Brexit fantasy built on the illusion that the trade we lose from the EU will be made up by the US and, in particular in this Bill, by the continuation, without any change, of the existing 14% of our trade with third countries. We know from Donald Trump that we cannot rely on the US. This is about whether we can rely on the 70 countries and 40 agreements to deliver the 14% of our trade in the same way, and the simple fact is that, rather than negotiating as team EU, any country now looking to negotiate against the UK alone is bound to want a new agreement, because we are a much weaker party.

That is why, in speaking to new clause 16, I simply ask that MPs have information about the countries that ask for changes in those agreements. The current Minister and previous Ministers have claimed that no one is asking for any changes, but we already know that both Chile and South Korea are asking for such changes. This is about transparency and scrutiny.

As it stands, the Trade Bill gives Ministers the power to amend domestic law to match any new trading arrangements, so we are talking about Ministers having the right, behind closed doors, to change standards, to change tariffs, to change human rights, to enable visas, to change environmental protections, to undermine public health and to change workers’ rights. [Interruption.] There is a bit of heckling, but the reality is that in bilateral trade agreements if Ministers decide there will be different standards, rights and protections, that may be permitted without the scrutiny of this House. Indeed, tribunals and mechanisms like the investor-state dispute system could be introduced behind closed doors. All new clause 16 says is that there should be scrutiny of that.

EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Today we celebrate an important agreement with a long-standing and close ally and, more widely, a further landmark for free trade and a commitment to closer relations with Asia. I congratulate the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), on both his elevation and the case he made in favour of the agreement, while also thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) for all he did for the new Department for International Trade.

The contrast with the other side of the House is striking: acres of unoccupied Benches, considerable misgivings about free trade, Divisions on what should be uncontested issues and appeals to colleagues by sensible free traders such as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), who is not in his place now, for his party not to be the party of narrow protectionism. It is a disappointing sight, with the shadow Secretary of State the closest thing we have in this country at the moment to a Trump-style mercantilist, unable, sadly, to see the benefits to consumers from lower tariffs and lower costs of imported goods bringing down our cost of living and inflation, as well as opening markets for our goods and services, especially to Japan, where the power of the “made in Britain” brand is strong and above all based on the quality of product and service.

There are issues ahead, of course, and I would welcome comments from the Minister on some of them in the time remaining. We will need confirmation that this agreement will be rolled over during the transition and thereafter extended until it can be widened and deepened. When does the Minister expect progress on this? There may be opportunities to bring down the cost of Japanese electrical vehicles which would speed up the reduction of both diesel vehicles and emissions in the UK. What assessment has the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy made of the potential for this? And what opportunities has the trade and working group identified for us to take forward? What would be the impact on the terms of this and any other relevant bilateral agreements were the UK to be part of a future trans-Pacific partnership that includes Japan?

Our value to Japanese foreign direct investment depends not least on the ease with which manufactured goods here can access EU markets. Are Ministers clear about the implications of that? In terms of future transparency and parliamentary oversight, does the Minister agree that pre-consultation is the key? What is unsatisfactory about the EU withdrawal agreement arrangements is the idea that after a negotiation Parliament can send the Government back to the negotiating table; that is not a very practical approach. Now that we have EU-negotiated agreements with Korea, Vietnam, Singapore and Japan—not all implemented yet—this encouraging progress in the continent where growth is most likely to be the greatest gives us further opportunities to expand, for example through a services agreement with Hong Kong, Australasia, China and the nations of south-east Asia as well as India.

In all of this, the opportunities for our international trade to go further and deeper are considerable. Nothing, of course, will be easy, but I hope the Minister will make a statement that will be strongly supportive of much closer UK trading relationships with Asia, where we need to open many doors in lands where trust is so important.