UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Trade

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Speech on Free Trade to the CATO Institute

    Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Speech on Free Trade to the CATO Institute

    The speech made by Kemi Badenoch. the Secretary of State for International Trade, in Washington DC on 14 November 2022.

    Thank you Ryan, that’s a fantastic and accurate introduction. So thank you, it’s a real pleasure to be speaking this evening at the CATO Institute. It’s lovely to see so many people who’ve come to listen to what I have to say on trade!

    So I’ve been in the role of Trade Secretary for two months now under two Prime Ministers, and there is a tendency when speaking to think-tanks to talk about the importance of free trade.

    But this is the CATO Institute, and if I have to explain to this audience why free trade is important then we have some very serious problems.

    So, instead, I’d like to talk very personally about what Free Markets and Free Trade mean to me.

    Many of you may not know, but I grew up in Nigeria and moved to the UK when I was 16.

    Where I did grow up had military governments and so I have a first-hand experience of authoritarianism and protectionism that I think is quite unique, and it’s unique not just in the UK, but in what we call “the West today”.

    I think it’s actually quite extraordinary that I’m standing here in front of you as the UK’s Trade Secretary but here I am, and here’s what I want you to know.

    When I talk about a belief in free trade, it’s not empty rhetoric. I’m speaking from personal experience about what happens when you don’t have it. I’ve seen what happens when a nation can’t trade or worse embraces protectionism.

    The result isn’t growth and the nurturing of local industries which is always the excuse that people give. The result is poverty, and the very best of a country’s talent leaving to find opportunities elsewhere.

    People worry about the free market and they talk about this as if it’s an uncontrolled experiment, but the market is people having the freedom to make choices to improve their lives. It does need good regulation, so that people don’t cheat the system, it needs good regulation to prevent unfair trading practices, monopolies and exploitation of consumers.

    So it’s not an untraveled free market, but you do need to have free trade and free markets because when you don’t, weird things happen.

    So I talk about things that I’ve seen growing up. For example when the government wanted to improve the tomato industry in Nigeria and so it banned tomato imports. And what didn’t happen was loads of farmers deciding to grow tomatoes, what instead happened was tomatoes becoming like diamonds in terms of how hard it was to get them.

    The supply dried up completely, the prices went up, big companies that used tomatoes as an ingredient cornered the market, and people who needed to use them to just make food—caterers, restaurants, people for whom that was almost the only vegetable they had, couldn’t access it because that’s not how you grow a local industry.

    And I saw it happen over and over again with finance, capital controls turning the currency into wastepaper effectively.

    Or, a story I love to tell about when the government banned rice imports and rice became a black market product.

    And when my mother came to visit me in London, her suitcase was not full of things from Harrods and Hamleys, it was full of Tesco value rice which she packed right up to fill her entire suitcase. For those of you who know what I mean by Tesco value rice it became a very, very precious commodity.

    That’s what a lack of free trade and free markets creates, and there’s dozens and dozens of examples that I could give but, like I said, at CATO I shouldn’t have to explain why that is.

    But the reason why I talk about it is because I’m fighting for something I really believe in. Free markets and free trade make the world a better place and that is the only purpose to becoming a politician. Nothing else matters.

    So why has the world become more protectionist? I think that’s a more interesting question rather than preaching to the choir about the benefits of free trade and free markets.

    Why has the world become more protectionist? Everyone here knows that protectionism is not the answer.

    The US and the UK have done a lot to expand the concept of free trade – especially in the last 75 years, we founded the multilateral trading system with our allies, and our transatlantic partnership embodies why free trade works and why it matters so much.

    But one of the many reasons I’m so frustrated by the trope that Brexit was the UK retreating from the world, is because it is completely untrue. I voted to leave the European Union and I saw Brexit as a once in a generation opportunity for the UK to embrace the world. And trade was – and still is – at the heart of that.

    So why does it feel like everyone is becoming more protectionist?

    And the answer is uncertainty. We live in uncertain times.

    A global pandemic that changed our understanding of the world, Russia’s war in Ukraine, and a more assertive China are just three of the things that are making people more fearful about the future.

    Relatively low economic growth in the West over recent decades compared to what people are used to has also caused a part of this problem. So what can we do? What do we need to provide more security for the people of the world. That relative low economic growth is absolutely terrifying, and for those people who saw the post war 20th century it makes a lot of our contemporaries feel poorer than they actually are. And if you compound that with the belief that their jobs are being taken away either by technology or offshoring, it is no surprise that the instinct is to protect what we have.

    So if we are going to make people feel less protectionist, we’re going to have to make them feel more secure first. And we need to show how free trade and free markets, when done properly, do provide security.

    So trade as a tool of security is at the very heart of the trade policy that I’m going to be pushing as the UK’s Trade Secretary. The US and UK can provide security and indeed certainty by doing three things:

    One, investing in the future, not just the present.

    Two, Securing and diversifying supply chains, which means more trade, not less.

    And three, deepening international partnerships, which is one of the reasons I am here.

    Here are some examples of how we’re doing this in the UK in just one area – so let’s talk about climate change as an example.

    Two weeks ago, I launched the UK’s Green Trade and Investment Expo securing millions of pounds that will grow our economy and create jobs across the industries of the future.

    We all know that climate change is a challenge for us all, wherever we live in the world. But we know that we can and should solve it by using free trade and investment to accelerate the technological progress that will protect the planet. And something that not enough politicians say, we must do this, we must protect the planet in a way that does not impoverish the UK, the US or let’s be honest any other country.

    I talked then about securing and diversifying supply chains. We will need this to improve energy security globally.

    So back home in Europe, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made it clear that relying on authoritarian regimes for energy is not sustainable. Doing so has made it harder and more expensive to heat our homes and the ensuing energy crisis has increased inflation to levels not seen in recent memory.

    So our trade relationships will help secure our energy supply. But it’s long-term investment in nuclear, in renewables in democratic countries that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep down consumer costs.

    And trade is more than selling each other goods and services, it’s also about foreign direct investment. Technological investment creates the jobs of tomorrow.

    I said to all those investors who came to the Expo from around the world, including the US, investment can future-proof the economy if we get it right.

    More importantly, as we’re seeing in the UK it drives economic growth and keeps communities alive. Communities such as Blyth in the North East of England which was a coal mining town once in decline, but is now thriving as it becomes one of the UK’s most important bases for offshore wind and is driving the clean energy revolution, funded by investors from across the world – including here.

    And that’s just on climate change.

    Now that we’ve left the European Union and have an independent trade policy what does this look like in practice?

    Well, we’re using our new freedoms to negotiate new trade deals and upgrade existing ones– deepening our ties with our allies while creating new economic partnerships.

    We’re joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP as we call it – it’s a network of 11 countries, spanning from Asia to the Americas, it’s got Canada and Mexico in it, maybe the US someday – but it covers at the moment half a billion people.

    We’re strengthening our relationships with our partners and allies in the Indo Pacific, a region that will be responsible for half of global growth in the coming decades. We’re thinking about the future.

    We’re in talks on a free trade deal with India. India’s a country that’s going to be the world’s third biggest economy by 2050.

    We’re acting to protect global supply chains after Covid-19 and of course the invasion of Ukraine revealed so many vulnerabilities.

    And what do we want from the US?

    Well, we’ve made no secret that we want to deepen trade ties through a comprehensive free trade agreement. So those of you who want more free trade with the UK, please write to your Congressman. And I hear there’s some new ones this week.

    But the lack of an FTA is no barrier to boosting trade.

    Our trading relationship with the US was worth over $250 million over the past 12 months.

    So we are each other’s number one source of foreign direct investment. More than 1.2 million Americans work for UK companies in the United States, and every day just under 1.5 million Brits go to work for an American firm.

    So the UK has been nimble and innovative in finding other ways of working with you beyond free trade agreements.

    For instance, we’re signing Memorandum of Understandings on a state-wide level.

    In May, we signed one on trade and economic cooperation with Indiana – that’s a state that already buys $1.4 billion worth of UK goods every year. North Carolina followed in July.

    And my team is securing others and looking to sign even more.

    So as I said, I’m here to continue deepening our international partnership.

    Our trading relationship does not just build itself. We need to work at it. That doesn’t just mean giving speeches about how much we love each other, it also sometimes means fixing problems and offering challenge when required.

    So while I’m here, I’ll also be raising our concerns about the Inflation Reduction Act. We know this was a strategic step to protect the US economy and we also know that there’ll be many people in DC, and across the country who support it.

    But it’s important these measures don’t conflate long standing allies and partners like the UK, with those other countries that might want to damage US interests.

    So everyone here knows the ins and outs of the Inflation Reduction Act. However, you may not know that the substantial new tax credits for electric cars, not only bars vehicles made in the UK from the US market, but it also affects vehicles made in the US by UK manufacturers.

    So the investment and innovation taking place in the UK should be helping the US with tomorrow’s challenges.

    US businesses already have over $500 billion invested in our economy – that’s more than anywhere else in the world, and to put that figure into context it’s more than Sweden’s annual GDP.

    So it’s one thing if over the long term one country locks out its friends to compete with opponents, but it’s another if you’re locking out the investment made by your own companies.

    And those same opponents don’t hesitate to use strong arm tactics to create geopolitical divides and to threaten and coerce smaller economies.

    So if the US and UK are to future proof ourselves and our allies against a changing world, we need to approach trade in a more muscular way.

    As world leading centres for strategic industries, we need to develop trade policy that reflects how global commerce is evolving. And we need to use it to fight even harder for the ideas and values that underpin our democracies and economies.

    And we must help each other do that. So that means working together to shape the rules that govern global commerce before those who want to grab control and stifle free trade get there first.

    Protecting intellectual property rights is one example. Both our economies were built on the work of inventors and entrepreneurs.

    And intellectual property rights drive the innovation, they incentivise inventors, they protect and reward their ideas. And if we conflate these ideas of Intellectual Property with protectionism, we risk choking off innovation.

    So, it’s important that the UK and US work together to champion the multilateral rules-based system, uphold the international Intellectual Property rights framework – and with every trade barrier that falls and every contract that gets signed between businesses, opportunity and prosperity increases around the world. This means democracy flourishes and the case for autocracy diminishes.

    There is an exciting future ahead for us both in terms of UK-US trade cooperation. I’m thrilled to be part of that and to be working with you here in Washington and also across the US.

    And I look forward to a shared transatlantic future filled with even more friendship, economic cooperation and mutual success.

    Thank you.

  • George Eustice – 2022 Speech on the UK Trade Deals with Australia and New Zealand

    George Eustice – 2022 Speech on the UK Trade Deals with Australia and New Zealand

    The speech made by Greg Hands, the Conservative MP for Camborne and Redruth, in the House of Commons on 14 November 2022.

    The current Secretary of State for International Trade had no role in the discussions on these deals, although my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy did and will recall some of them. The Secretary of State was not in the Cabinet at the time, nor in any of the Cabinet Committees, while the Minister has defended the position that was taken at the time.

    My position is obviously slightly different: I was in the Cabinet in 2021 and I was on the Cabinet Sub-Committee that argued over the Australian trade deal—for, yes, there were deep arguments and differences about how we should approach it—but since I now enjoy the freedom of the Back Benches, I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed. I hope my right hon. Friend will understand my reason for doing this, which is that unless we recognise the failures the Department for International Trade made during the Australia negotiations, we will not be able to learn the lessons for future negotiations. There are critical negotiations under way right now, notably on the CPTPP and on Canada, and it is essential that the Department does not repeat the mistakes it made.

    The first step is to recognise that the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK, which was not for lack of trying on my part. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, there were things that we achieved, such as a special agricultural safeguard for years 10 to 15, staged liberalisation across the first decade and the protection of British sovereignty in sanitary and phytosanitary issues. It is no surprise that many of these areas were negotiated either exclusively or predominantly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of the UK team, but it has to be said that, overall, the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.

    What would a good agreement have looked like? It would have been one having enduring TRQs on beef in particular, but probably also for sheep. The volumes would probably have started at about 10,000 tonnes per annum, raising after a decade to about 60,000 tonnes or perhaps 80,000 tonnes, which could have been manageable. We did not need to give Australia or New Zealand full liberalisation in beef and sheep—it was not in our economic interest to do so, and neither Australia nor New Zealand had anything to offer in return for such a grand concession. Let us not forget that, while we are about to open our market to unbridled access for Australian beef, Australia remains one of the few countries left in the world that maintains an absolute export ban for British beef. Not a single kilo of British beef can be sold in Australia since it maintains a protectionist ban, using the BSE—bovine spongiform encephalopathy—episode as a sham reason for doing so.

    The impact of full liberalisation is hard to predict; the reality is that, provided we maintain a ban on hormones in beef, volumes might remain quite low, but here is the big challenge. The CPTPP negotiation that is under way could mean accession and agreement to new dispute resolution processes that will undermine the UK’s sovereignty in SPS issues and actually undermine our approach when it comes to banning hormones in beef. If some foreign court or foreign mediation process were to say as a matter of treaty that the UK had to accept beef from Australia treated with hormones, that could change the nature of this agreement considerably; volumes could rise significantly, perhaps to more than 200,000 tonnes over time, and that would have a very severe impact on British beef.

    Anthony Mangnall

    I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that CPTPP dispute mechanisms are through the World Trade Organisation, and I am not sure that the WTO, as it stands, can override any one of our SPS standards. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

    George Eustice

    The CPTPP has provisions for its own dispute resolution and they are modelled on what happens in the WTO, but here is the thing: if we do not get the negotiation right with CPTPP it might undermine our ability to practise our own SPS regime and have independence in this area.

    If we were to have a significant increase in Australian beef, because we had been forced by a court or a dispute resolution service to allow hormones in beef—and there have been close challenges in the past, through the WTO—that would be intolerable for any British Government. The Government of the day would probably have to trigger article 32.8 of the agreement and give six months’ notice to terminate the FTA. In my view the best clause in our treaty with Australia is that final clause, because it gives any UK Government present or future an unbridled right to terminate and renegotiate the FTA at any time with just six months’ notice. Many Members will remember that we had hours of fun in the last Parliament discussing triggering article 50 of the treaty on European Union; I suspect we would prefer not to have to go back to that, but article 32.8 is the ultimate and final sanction, which, as things have turned out, is a critical safeguard given the size of the concessions made to Australia in the trade deal.

    What lessons should we learn? First, and most important, we should not set arbitrary timescales for concluding negotiations. The UK went into this negotiation holding the strongest hand—holding all the best cards—but at some point in early summer 2021 the then Trade Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) took a decision to set an arbitrary target to conclude heads of terms by the time of the G7 summit, and from that moment the UK was repeatedly on the back foot. In fact, at one point the then Trade Secretary asked her Australian opposite number what he would need in order to be able to conclude an agreement by the time of the G7. Of course, the Australian negotiator kindly set out the Australian terms, which eventually shaped the deal.

    We must never repeat that mistake. The Minister and Secretary of State will currently be getting submissions from officials saying that we need to join the CPTPP in a hurry and that if we do not do so now we will not join the club early enough and will not be shaping the rules—they will be saying, “We might miss the boat, this is a crucial part of the Pacific tilt” and so on. But the best thing the Minister can do is go back and tell Crawford Falconer, “I don’t care if it takes a decade to do this agreement; we will get the right agreement—we will never again set the clock against ourselves and shatter our own negotiating position.”

    The second lesson is that we must look at making a machinery of government change. I believe all responsibility for agrifood negotiations, including relating to tariff rate quotas, should be transferred from the Department for International Trade to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because DEFRA has superior technical knowledge in this area. It is important to remember that DEFRA never left the world stage; the DIT is a new creation with people often lacking experience but doing their best to pick things up, whereas even during the EU era DEFRA maintained a presence in trade negotiations, advising and informing the EU’s position and dealing with matters such as market access around the globe. DEFRA is worldly and has deep technical knowledge in this area and it should, therefore, take full responsibility for negotiating TRQs in agrifood.

    The third change we must look at making is strengthening the role of Parliament in scrutinising and perhaps even agreeing the negotiating mandate. Countries such as Japan and the United States and the EU all use their parliamentary processes to their advantage. When we were negotiating with Japan and seeking to increase access for British cheese, I remember Japan said, “We would love to, but unfortunately we can’t because there is a parliamentary motion that we cannot breach. Therefore, we cannot retreat on this position.” The UK does not have that. We could use Parliament and a mandate agreed by Parliament to say to trading partners, “We’re not able to agree to what you’re asking for.” However, if they perceive that Crawford Falconer calls the shots and that he will always go through some back channel to get something agreed, we will not be in a strong position and our negotiating position will be undermined.

    That brings me to my final point. I have always been a huge fan of the British civil service; I was never a Minister or politician to level criticism at them. I enjoyed nine years of incredibly good relations with civil servants at all levels, but I do want to raise a comment about personnel within the Department for International Trade. Crawford Falconer, currently the interim permanent secretary, is not fit for that position, in my experience. His approach was always to internalise Australian demands, often when they were against UK interests, and his advice was invariably to retreat and make fresh concessions. All the while, he resented people who had a greater understanding of technical issues than he did. It was perhaps something of a surprise when he arrived from New Zealand to find that there were probably several hundred civil servants in the UK civil service who understood trade better than he did, and he has not been good, over the years, at listening to them. He has now done that job for several years, and it would be a good opportunity for him to move on and for us to get a different type of negotiator in place—somebody who understands British interests better than he has been able to.

  • Angus Brendan MacNeil – 2022 Speech on Parliamentary Scrutiny of Free Trade Agreements

    Angus Brendan MacNeil – 2022 Speech on Parliamentary Scrutiny of Free Trade Agreements

    The speech made by Angus Brendan MacNeil, the SNP MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, in the House of Commons on 3 November 2022.

    Tapadh leibh, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it is a great privilege to be called. Before I get going, I want to flag up a letter that has been written to party Whips from influential women in the trade space calling for more women to be on the International Trade Committee. While this is not a matter for me as Chair or for the staff of the Committee, we do think it is worth flagging up that this call has been made. This letter has been written to party Whips by Sally Jones, Catherine McGuinness, Nicola Watkinson, Sabina Ciofu and Noreen Burroughes Cesareo. I think it is worth putting on the record that that has happened.

    I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to make a statement to the House on the 4th report of the International Trade Committee on parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements. I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of hon. Members on the Committee from all parts of the political spectrum, the Committee staff, who work tirelessly, and those who have provided written and oral evidence to us in our FTA inquiries.

    This year, we have completed scrutiny on new FTAs with Australia and New Zealand, and we have commented on the specific content in a report on them. However, as we went through those FTAs, there were themes that kept emerging, as they did from other inquiries. In our role as a critical friend of the Secretary of State for International Trade and the Department for International Trade, we have included these in the report to start a constructive conversation about future parliamentary scrutiny. At this stage, I would put in a disquieting or discordant note by saying that a general debate a week on Monday lumping both together does not really cut it at all.

    From the evidence we have received and seen ourselves, as well as the international comparisons we have undertaken, it is clear that the way in which the Government engage with others, including Parliament, through planning, negotiating and delivering FTAs is not all it could or should be. It was particularly galling this morning to see the Secretary of State actually blame Parliament for the now Prime Minister calling the Australia deal “one-sided” at one stage during the Conservative leadership hustings.

    We are calling on the Government to undertake longer-term consultative reviews on how they approach this and to report back within this Session of Parliament. Our experience of scrutinising the FTAs, and the Australia deal in particular, was far from what we had expected, so we specifically ask the Government to look at how they work with Parliament and its Committees, and to consider how they can bring us in more closely throughout the process. However, we know that doing this well will not be a quick process, so we call on the Government to make changes in the interim to ensure that the scrutiny arrangements are stronger for all future FTAs, not just those following the review.

    The Secretary of State has said she will provide indicative timelines for the new FTAs. She has co-ordinated the formal scrutiny period for the New Zealand FTA with the publication of our report, and we are grateful for that. Our report asks for specific further commitments on the time between key stages in that timeline to ensure that we are able to undertake robust scrutiny in the necessary time, and with increased certainty, in advance of the FTAs being signed.

    We are also consider that the provisions for parliamentary scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG, as it is known—are out of date and should be included in the Government’s review of scrutiny arrangements. As our report notes, when CRaG was being taken through Parliament it was

    “in a significantly different context to that of today.”

    The fact that it was considered before the vote to leave the EU means that Parliament did not consider CRaG’s suitability for scrutinising a raft of new free trade agreements negotiated solely by the United Kingdom.

    The fact that the Government have made additional commitments—they are welcome, although they have not always been met in the spirit, only in the letter—underlines how the CRaG provisions do not go far enough to meet the needs of the new context and to allow strong parliamentary scrutiny. The Government have said they believe that

    “CRaG continues to provide a robust framework”.—[Official Report, 12 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 162WH.]

    We respectfully disagree and urge them to reconsider.

    Further, CRaG and the additional commitments previously made by the Government, as set out in an exchange of letters between the then Minister Lord Grimstone and the Chair of the International Agreements Committee, Baroness Hayter, have been shown to have insufficient strength. Parliament cannot reject an FTA, but CRaG gives this House, and only this House, the power to delay ratification indefinitely if it so chooses. However, with the Australia FTA we saw that the Government can prevent us from being able to use this power by refusing to grant a debate and a vote within the CRaG period.

    The Committee is clear that the Government must commit to any future FTAs being subject to a debate and a vote on a substantive motion within the CRaG period, giving this House the time to discuss the contents of the deal and to show whether it supports ratification. It is not enough for the Government to say they will do this subject to parliamentary time; they must make time, and they must not tie the House’s hands. This must start with the New Zealand FTA, which will be published on Monday. Particularly given that the Prime Minister, who at the time of his resignation as Chancellor pointed out that he felt a deal was “one-sided”, is now Prime Minister and is back to head-in-the-sand business as usual, this really is selling people short. If someone has such a private view, they can have such a public view on FTAs.

    Another key theme common to both FTA inquiries and on which we have also received evidence in other inquiries is the need for a single document that clearly sets out the Government’s trade strategy and the role of FTAs within it. The Government have previously rejected calls for this, pointing to various documents as collectively explaining the strategy, but we have seen and heard that this is not sufficient for businesses and other stakeholders. It is also not enough for us, meaning that we lack a single point of reference against which to scrutinise how successfully and coherently the Government are delivering on their trade agenda around a central strategy.

    There also remain questions about other important aspects. Sometimes, trade deals are not solely trade-focused; they have aspects that are not trade-focused, for example in relation to human rights and the environment. There have been mixed messages about whether these should be included in FTAs or addressed via other means, or a combination of the two. Some of these aspects may not have been an issue for FTAs already negotiated, but omitting them from future FTAs could be a significant missed opportunity. We are therefore asking the Government to clarify their position on how and where such issues must and should be addressed.

    I am not confident, due to a lack of scrutiny, about whether Members fully understand enough about these trade deals. The New Zealand trade deal is worth about one 250th of the damage Brexit is doing to the economy, jobs and living standards. All the trade deals on the horizon will not make up one 20th of that damage. Do Members understand—I am not confident we all do collectively in the House of Commons—that trade deals merely replace tariffs? The paper-free and bureaucracy-free trading that the UK enjoyed in the single market of the European Union is not being replaced, and nothing can be exported from the UK now without paperwork.

    In conclusion, I want to welcome again the recent positive movement by the Secretary of State and her predecessor in seeking to rebuild relationships that had deteriorated significantly. These are steps in the right direction, but as our fourth report shows, there is still a lot further to go before Parliament and the public can be assured that new trade deals are being as rigorously scrutinised as they should be. We hope that the Government will consider and rapidly accept our recommendations, which are cross-party, and help us all to achieve this goal for the good of scrutiny in the House and for the good of all Members’ understanding.

    The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Greg Hands)

    I congratulate the Committee Chair on his report, which we will obviously respond to in due course, and I thank him for his warm words about the commitment by our new Secretary of State to engage with his Committee.

    The Committee has been consistent under the hon. Gentleman’s chairmanship in calling for more scrutiny. This is not the proper place for me to enter a full defence of CRaG, but I have a question for the hon. Gentleman. CRaG is not the whole extent of the scrutiny, and he did not mention that any changes a trade deal would cause to the UK system would need legislative change. For example, the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is going through the House at the moment, and it is giving ample time for scrutiny to all Members of the House. Will he say a little about some of the other scrutiny opportunities available?

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    I thank the Minister for his congratulations and his kind remarks about consistency. What we find is that by that period it is too late. Things are very one-sided and the Whips are pushing things through. If we are to have a place for consideration we have to take the issue away from the partisanship that we have at that stage in the House. I think the Minister knows it could be done better. When the Prime Minister has said, in one frequency, that a deal is “one-sided”, surely that is a message that things could, and should, have been done better.

    Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)

    I add our thanks to the Chair and his Committee for this important and timely report. One thing it rightly focuses on is the lack of a coherent trade strategy. The Committee has previously said that the approach of the Department for International Trade was “flat-footed”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have not been helped by the fact that over the past three years we have seen Trade Ministers arguing with each other during ministerial questions, and one former Secretary of State spending most of her tenure obsessed with her Instagram posts and coffee orders?

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    The hon. Lady tempts me down some interesting rabbit holes. I will not argue with any of the points she raises, and I agree with her on one specific point, which is that the call for a trade strategy from the Government is universal. It comes from all sides of the political spectrum and from everybody who comes in front of the Committee. They do not know what the UK Government are trying to achieve. It looks piecemeal and as if they want to come back waving bits of paper saying “trade deals in our time”, just for the sake of that piece of paper. The problem with that approach is that down the line in years to come, areas that have not been defended properly will see economic damage.

    What will the Government do about that economic damage when it comes? For instance, farming, fisheries and forestry will see damage from the New Zealand or Australia trade deals, but that is not being dealt with. That sausage factory approach is not good enough. In the end, people who have been damaged and suffered that loss will come complaining to their Members of Parliament—quite rightly. The Government do not realise this is coming down the line, but when it comes it is going to be sore.

    Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)

    As a member of the International Trade Committee I endorse much of what the Chair has said, although he never loses an opportunity to attack Brexit, so we cannot entirely agree on everything.

    Does he acknowledge that there is a cross-party majority on the Committee who acknowledge that the relationship between the Committee and the previous Secretary of State caused problems? There is now an opportunity to reset that. Does he agree that a majority on the Committee want more free trade deals, and we want to do all we can to facilitate that while being a critical friend?

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    I used to be Angus’s vice-chair, and it is good to hear that nothing has changed as far as his views.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I remember many a ding-dong that we had on Brexit, as you may recall. I thank the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) for what he said. He is right—I point out the facts and numbers around Brexit, and they are not good. I compare Brexit to going to the horse-racing with £500 and coming back with trade deals worth £2 or £8 or whatever—we are still £490-odd down, but I will leave that there in deference to the hon. Gentleman.

    The hon. Gentleman is right that a majority of the Committee want to reset that, and under the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we want to see trade deals. The question is about the terms of those trade deals, and that is where the House should be involved. That is why we look at trade deals that the European Union might achieve with New Zealand or Australia, versus what we have achieved, and we must also remember the words of the Prime Minister, who said that those deals are “one-sided”.

    I was speaking to a member of the Trade and Agriculture Commission who said that—I had better phrase it this way—the Australia trade deal was the biggest giveaway of agricultural liberalisation that has been seen in any trade agreement. We should remember that free trade agreements are not about free trade; they are about bureaucratic trade, and they usually replace tariffs with bits of paper. There is nowhere where trade occurs as freely—to return to that word—as it did with the European Union before Brexit.

    John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)

    Members on both side of the House share some concerns about the performance of previous Trade Ministers—not only their attitudes to the way deals were conducted, but their relations with this House. May I also express disappointment with the position of the Committee, and perhaps strike a note that dissents from the general congratulatory tone? The Chair rightly identified the issue of questioning Government strategy, but I am not clear what the strategy and trade policy of the International Trade Committee is. I heard nothing in the contribution to outline a recognition that trade has been of enormous benefit to humankind over centuries, and particularly since the second world war, in bringing hundreds of millions, if not billions of people across the planet out of poverty, and nothing about the opportunities for trade. Those who argued for us staying in the EU were surely arguing about the benefits of trade.

    I also do not see any indication of the countries with which we ought to be doing trade deals, and I would like a response on that. If we are not able to do trade deals with countries such as Australia and New Zealand with which we share history, family, strategic, security and defence relations, who can we make agreements with? Please do not just tell me it is the EU. We need to look in government but also, I would argue, in the Committee, at having a consistent trade policy, and I look forward to that in future debates.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman —it is good to be criticised, because that forces people to look inwards and see exactly what is happening and what needs to be done. The role of the Committee is first to scrutinise and sometimes to help the Government, and indeed, as the Minister will know, perhaps to chide them. It is also to set the agenda at times—that alludes to other countries, as the right hon. Gentleman says. We can trade with countries without trade deals, but the terms of trade vary. We pay tariffs, and usually when we get rid of those in a trade agreement we have bureaucracy instead.

    The right hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to raise an important point on the Floor of the House, which is about resources. He is asking the Committee to do more. Yes, the Committee can do more. We are aware we can do more, but we are very aware that our workload leaves a heavy burden on Committee staff. If he can add his voice to other voices to ensure that the Committee is well resourced, we will be eternally grateful to our critical friend on the Labour Back Benches.

    Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)

    I regularly hear from constituents in Glasgow North who are concerned about the inability of many of us to effectively scrutinise trade deals. We are lucky if we get even a straight up or down vote on the whole proposition, rather than having any influence over the detail of those deals. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that this is another aspect of Brexit? We were told that Brexit was about taking back control for this House, and the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty, but what he describes in his report sounds an awful lot like an Executive power grab, where instead of Brussels bureaucrats it is Whitehall mandarins and unaccountable Tory Ministers deciding policy. Surely if the Government really believe in parliamentary sovereignty and the sovereignty of this House, they should adopt the recommendations in the Committee’s report in full.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his fair comments about empowering the House on trade deals. That should be welcomed, particularly by Government Members given that they are in the majority. It might also help better trade deals come into existence and be signed—trade deals that people can unite behind, rather than giveaway trade deals or, in the words of the Prime Minister, “one-sided” trade deals. I am not sure whether having revolving doors, with Secretaries of State or other Ministers going from position to position, really helps. It is good to see a retread, if I may be so gentle, because I think this is the Minister’s second or third time back—[Interruption.] The third time, with, I trust, a body of institutional knowledge coming back to the Department. There is a concern, however, that these things gain a momentum of their own. A previous Prime Minister—but which one? The one from Uxbridge—was desperate to see bits of paper being signed. There was that going on.

    I understand why the hon. Member’s constituents are frustrated. The House should have a say and have input. There are people out there who will be affected by trade deals, and they should have those concerns reflected in the House of Commons so that the negotiators can know, before they start to negotiate, what the difficulties are for certain parts of the UK and, when trade-offs are made, if the damage is to Welsh hill farmers for the benefit of City types in London, that is recognised in future fiscal transfers.

  • Greg Hands – 2022 Speech at the Chatham House Global Trade Conference

    Greg Hands – 2022 Speech at the Chatham House Global Trade Conference

    The speech made by Greg Hands, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 3 November 2022.

    Thank you Alan, many thanks for that kind introduction.

    I’d like to thank Chatham House for inviting me here to discuss the future of global trade and the pivotal role the United Kingdom can play in helping to shape it.

    Great to see our former Permanent Secretary John Alty in the audience.

    I was here at the inception of the Department in the summer of 2016, and returned again in the lead up to the Trade Cooperation Agreement and leaving the end of the transition period 2020-21, and returned again as I see you today.

    Actually the last time I was here, I did so in my former role as energy minister. And one has certainly needed energy to keep up with events in Westminster over recent weeks, as you may have noticed!

    Last time I was here, there was actually a demo about energy – just sometimes thinking that the world of trade is sometimes more erudite than you might get in the world of energy.

    But what has remained unwavering throughout is this government’s fierce commitment to free trade and open markets as the key to unlocking the UK’s economic potential and kickstarting growth.

    And this is a cause I have championed during my three stints as Minister of State for Trade, during which I have witnessed the transformative power of global commerce at first hand.

    This is a commitment to trade that our new Prime Minister shares. I’ve had quite a few discussions with him over the summer recently about trade and so it’s a cause that I know is close to Rishi Sunak’s heart, as it is to mine.

    Because trade is the most powerful force for human progress we have at our disposal.

    A force that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty since the turn of the century.

    And that will drive the engine of global growth over the next decade too.

    Delivering enormous benefits for the United Kingdom and the global community alike, creating new jobs, fostering innovation and delivering prosperity worldwide.

    But trade as we know, is a truly global endeavour.

    And to deliver the greatest benefits it must be free and fair for all.

    That is why we are working with our global partners in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas to put in place the building blocks of this freer, fairer future.

    Calling out nations that don’t play by the rules and helping to build a global free trading coalition with Britain at its heart.

    I mentioned my recent return to the department, so if I had to outline my three immediate priorities I’ve identified in my work in trade policy (it’s not the whole of the department, we also have ministers for exports, investment and so on).

    But my three main priorities:

    The first is making sure the UK joins the CPTPP trading area as soon as possible. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. 11 countries around the Pacific Rim, four continents, 5 million people, a GDP of around 9tn pound sterling.

    It’s a perfect deal, a great match for the UK. With really modern rules of origin, digital trade. I was interested to see a really good session earlier on digital trade. And it will help to set new rules and standards for trade across the world, encompassing many of the world’s great progressive nations, Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore. These are the countries that in my view are leading the debate on trade policy, and it’s a free trade area without a political union. It is in many ways everything that the UK has always wanted to join in my opinion.

    The second area is India, just the size and the prospect of India alone as a market is too impossible to ignore. And I think the UK’s traditional links and connections there are incredible, it’s not just the trade relationship but the investment we have with India, means that it’s an immediate priority for us to potentially be the first G7 country to do a trade deal with India.

    And the third area is to focus on the nitty gritty of trade work, the trade barriers, making sure we are focusing on removing trade barriers around the world, I’m talking anything from lot codes on Scotch whisky bottles to Taiwan through to German labour market rules, discriminatory Spanish customs practices – a whole host of different issues out there that prevent UK goods and services being sold and prevent them coming the other way.

    So those are my three priorities. And I’m going to return to each of those three throughout the course of this speech.

    So, first and foremost, we must work with our international partners to navigate a path through the economic storm unleashed by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine…

    … which has of course sent shockwaves through the world’s financial system, unleashing rising prices for energy and commodities…

    …Bringing about let’s be frank about it scenes of destruction – and I studied history as an undergraduate at university, and my main focus was 20th century Central and Eastern European history, and that is a period of an enormous amount of human and material destruction. And I think the sort of scenes that we’ve seen throughout the course of this year have been all too reminiscent of the first half of the 20th century. Something which is happening here in the first half of 21st century.

    But Britain is helping lead the West’s response to this crisis by supplying military assistance to Ukraine.

    And we are using the power of trade to support Ukraine in its struggle for freedom economically too.

    By removing tariffs on all goods from that nation under the UK-Ukraine Free Trade agreement.

    And providing other economic support – including £1bn in loan guarantees.

    While working with our allies around the world to impose unprecedented trade sanctions on Russia.

    But we know that our work is far from done.

    The invasion has revealed the fragility of global peace and security. And there was a fascinating session you’ve just had on supply chains which after pandemic has revealed lots of global vulnerabilities which many of us thought or suspected were there but have been brought into sharp focus this year.

    A line has been drawn in the sand between liberty and tyranny.

    And as we look to the future we must ask ourselves what kind of country we wish to be.

    A nation that looks outwards to the world? An open, interconnected, truly global Britain that builds new bridges of trade and investment?

    Or a country that battens down the hatches and hides behind protectionist trade barriers?

    And we must decide what kind of world we wish to build.

    A world in which liberty, democracy and security are the norm – and in which free, fair, rules-based trade can come to the fore.

    I’m very much in that camp and this government is as well.

    Or a world in which authoritarianism, protectionism and corruption hold sway?

    It is clear to this government which path the United Kingdom must take.

    We must work with our democratic allies to help shape the international order of the future. With free trade forged at its heart.

    Britain and our allies must push hard for reform of the World Trade Organisation for example so that the rules underpinning global trade are fit for purpose.

    Strengthening the dispute resolution mechanism and holding states that break the rules to account.

    Standing with our partners to confront shared challenges.

    As we did earlier this year at the 12th Ministerial WTO Conference in Geneva – our first as a renewed independent member of the WTO…

    …Where we signed a joint declaration on trade’s key role in underpinning global food security.

    Strengthening our multilateral partnerships will be more important now than ever before as the global economic axis shifts eastwards.

    China’s increasing international assertiveness and the growing importance of the Indo-Pacific will be among the most significant geopolitical and geo-economic shifts this decade.

    And our response will help define our relationship with the world that emerges in the decades ahead.

    The UK’s future prosperity is dependent on deepening our economic relationships with countries in the Indo-pacific region in particular.

    Which is why we are concentrating on building new bonds of trade and investment with nations across this region.

    Opening up fresh opportunities for British business in the cutting-edge industries that are shaping the world of tomorrow.

    Crucial to that is the UK’s accession to CPTPP – and another of my highest priorities is agreeing a deal with India which promises to be a game-changer for Britain’s economic ties with the world’s largest democracy and fifth largest economy.

    India is set to become the world’s third largest economy by 2030, and we are committed to building upon the living bridge of people, businesses and culture that bind our nations together.

    A shared commitment with India that Prime Minister Modi underlined when he welcomed the appointment of Rishi Sunak as our new Prime Minister.

    And our governments are making good progress in negotiating an ambitious FTA which could boost trade between us by as much as £28 billion.

    Setting British and Indian businesses free to trade and invest in each other’s markets.

    An FTA with India is a key plank of our work to position the United Kingdom at the centre of a network of free trade agreements across the globe.

    We have signed deals with 71 countries plus the EU so far, accounting for over £800bn-worth of trade last year.

    Including far reaching and innovative agreements with countries such as Japan, Australia and New Zealand that go further in cutting edge sectors such as digital and data.

    And we are working alongside our biggest single bilateral trade partner and closest ally the United States at both federal and state level to remove barriers to business… again with a very strong focus on services and digital trade.

    …Strengthening a trade and investment relationship worth more than £230bn.

    Beyond these deals we are making it easier for British firms to sell their goods and services overseas in other ways… my third priority

    …by tackling often complex trade rules and practical obstacles that block their path to growth

    Over the past two years, my department has removed over 400 such barriers to business – we have a database of trade barriers that we are seeking to remove… opening the door to global markets for British exports of all kinds.

    Successes so far include:

    Opening the way for first shipment of Welsh lamb exported to the US in more than 20 years…

    second…Tackling banking restrictions for British firms in Colombia, worth an estimated £55 million over 5 years…

    …And lifting restrictions that enable British apples, pears, quince to be exported to India for the first time.

    A broad cross section of goods and services.

    And we are going further and faster by using intelligence gathered from industry to target a “most wanted” list of obstacles standing in the way of British exporters.

    Unlocking a potential £20 billion-worth of new opportunities for our economy.

    And as we look ahead at the opportunities emerging worldwide, we are determined to strengthen our ties in our own neighbourhood too.

    Building on our trade and investment relationships with our allies across Europe – which still accounts for around half [around – 45%] of our total global trade.

    These are relationships that I am leading the way in strengthening in my role at DIT – as I travel across the continent to meet with politicians and businesses to help smooth the path for British trade and investment.

    Inevitably Britain leaving the European Union has changed that relationship, we are outside the single market, outside the customs union. But we have the most comprehensive Free Tree Agreement between the UK and EU, so we need to continue to make sure it works well for British businesses and British exporters.

    Whether by addressing French customs procedures, Spanish labour laws or German business regulations. Flavour of the work we’re doing there.

    And this government is committed to using the power of trade to support global development too.

    Helping open the door to trade-led growth for nations across the developing world.

    This isn’t just right morally, it makes sense economically too.

    Because trade not aid is the path to long-term prosperity.

    And, if demography is destiny, then the future of the global economy surely lies in the developing world.

    Where the youngest, most dynamic and most rapidly diversifying economies are emerging.

    With developing nations offering the greatest trade potential on the planet.

    By the middle of this century alone, Africa is set to account for one in four of the world’s consumers.

    Which is why the UK has made tearing down barriers to business with developing nations central to our global trade policy.

    We’ve agreed Economic Partnerships with 33 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries so far, covering more than £20 billion-worth of trade.

    And we have removed almost all tariffs on goods from 65 nations through our Developing Countries Trading Scheme. Building on the situation we inherited from the EU but making sure we greened our tariff, lowered our tariff, simplified our tariffs to really benefit developing world.

    While using our position as a global finance hub to provide the investment developing nations need to build their critical infrastructure.

    We are making progress towards our goal of building a freer, fairer future for global trade with UK right at the centre of it as one of the most progressive trade policy countries in the world.

    A future that will develop for the UK but also for our friends and allies around the world.

    But we know there are many hard miles yet to travel on this journey – the department is six and a half years into its existence – and we’ve achieved an enormous amount in that time but there’s still a huge amount for us to do.

    The big decisions on trade we take today will help define the world of tomorrow.

    And we must have the courage to stand by our conviction that free trade and open markets hold the key to prosperity.

    So that millions more people worldwide can be set free to realise their economic potential.

    And embrace the bright future that lies ahead. That is the UK ambition, both for our own trade policy and for that globally.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Statement on International Trade Week

    Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Statement on International Trade Week

    The statement made by Kemi Badenoch, the Secretary of State for International Trade, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    On Monday, I launched International Trade Week 2022, which will run until Friday with events taking place across the United Kingdom. Now in its second year, International Trade Week is my Department’s largest showcase of trade, exporting and investment potential in the UK.

    The week is designed to inspire businesses throughout the UK to pursue global opportunities, understand the UK’s investment potential and connect directly with trade industry experts. It will showcase key initiatives from my Department’s export strategy and provide an opportunity to hear from business about its work to support the UK’s race to £1 trillion worth of exports by the end of the decade. This Government continue to be committed to championing businesses to grow internationally and my Department will evidence this through our events throughout the week.

    With more than 10,000 business registrations to over 120 events across the week, there is clear appetite among British businesses to take advantage of the growing demand for UK goods and services, particularly from some of the world’s fastest growing economies. UK exports were £728.1 billion in the 12 months to end of August 2022, up £116.0 billion (19.0%) compared to the previous 12 months.

    Last year, the Department for International Trade also launched our export strategy and the “Made in the UK, Sold to the World” marketing campaign. One year on, we will celebrate successes to date and further promote our new products and services to business, as part our continued effort to deliver through the export strategy framework.

    On Tuesday, as part of the week, I also hosted the green trade and investment expo (GTIE) in Gateshead. The expo will inspire and encourage more high-quality, sustainable investment into UK businesses creating jobs and generating growth to benefit people across the UK.

    With increased investment in UK businesses, and by supercharging our exports, we will create jobs, increase energy security and resilience, boost productivity and build the expertise that will benefit the world. The expo will also demonstrate how the UK is bringing innovation and creativity to life, and how the ingenuity of British inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs is unlocking new growth, new jobs and new investment in clean and renewable technologies.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Speech at Green Trade and Investment Expo

    Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Speech at Green Trade and Investment Expo

    The speech made by Kemi Badenoch, the Secretary of State for International Trade, in Gateshead on 1 November 2022.

    Welcome to the Green Trade and Investment Expo.

    Let’s talk about Blyth. Blyth is a coastal town 16 miles from here. Coal mining was its lifeblood.

    But when Blyth’s last colliery closed three decades ago, around 1,700 jobs disappeared. Some people thought that the town would be left behind.

    It is true that the past years have been difficult and challenges still exist.

    Yesterday I took some of you to see how the town is becoming one of the country’s most important bases for clean energy.

    It’s home to the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult, where the biggest turbine blades in the world are put through their paces.

    Another company called JDR is transforming the site of Blyth’s old coal fired power station into a next generation offshore cable factory.

    So, a town once powered by coal is now powered by wind. And all this is creating hundreds of jobs.

    Blyth illustrates the promise of the clean energy revolution.

    And the Government want to see this story of opportunity, growth and revitalised communities replicated across the UK, because at the end of he day what we are about is helping people live better lives.

    That’s where my department comes in. We believe that green trade and investment will be the future-proofing force that will help us create a better tomorrow, and I’ll give you three reasons why:

    First, we know that growing our green industries is crucial to reaching net zero.

    Some people raise awareness of climate change by throwing soup at paintings in museums or gluing themselves to the road. That’s not really my style.

    We in this room know that we can only tackle climate change by using free trade and investment to accelerate green technological progress. And we must do this in a way that does not impoverish the UK.

    Second, to protect our energy security we need to grow our own industries.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made it quite clear that relying on authoritarian regimes can make it tougher to heat our homes.

    Our trade relationships will help secure our energy supply. But it’s long-term investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep down consumer costs.

    And third, as we are seeing in Blyth, green trade and investment acts as a future-proof by creating those jobs of tomorrow.

    The jobs that will drive economic growth and keep communities alive.

    And this economic angle is the subject I want to focus on today.

    Like many governments around the world, we’re dealing with low growth. We need to find our way through it. Because we owe it to our children and grandchildren to build a better, more prosperous future.

    A lot of this growth will come from the ideas being developed by green industries. We know firms that innovate, expand faster than those that don’t.  And the UK is quickly becoming the green creativity capital of the world.

    Let me give you some examples:

    Imagine being suspended on ropes 40 metres above the North Sea, balanced on wind turbine blade. That’s not just nerve-wracking, it’s also risky. But until recently that was the only way for wind power firms to identify and fix a technical fault.

    That’s now changing after an engineer called Chris Cieslak first designed a robot in his garage.

    His invention, BladeBUG, means a person no longer always has to climb onto the blade to identify a fault. And in some cases, BladeBUG can fix the fault too. This improves safety and boosts efficiency by keeping turbines turning.   That’s an idea that could not only benefit our own wind energy industry but those of other countries too.

    Steamology is a company developing zero-emission hydrogen steam engines from its workshop in Salisbury. An innovation that will prevent rail and lorry operators having to scrap valuable existing vehicles if they decarbonise – saving them money and avoiding waste.

    And it’s becoming safer for people to work in our offshore energy industry, thanks to innovations from Zelim, a company based in Edinburgh.

    When someone falls into the sea, every second counts, and Zelim’s AI-powered technology spots and tracks people in the water, and then its unmanned boat rescues them.

    All these businesses have been supported by our Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult in Blyth.

    There are so many other brilliant ideas like ones you’ve just heard about.

    The challenge now is how to capitalise on them.

    And we’ll do that through attracting the investment that will get these innovations off the ground and help businesses to export. Because this is a virtuous circle: Innovation needs investment to flourish, investment leads to exports, exports create growth and new jobs, and more innovation.

    And if we get our strategy right, the impact could be transformational on places like Blyth and the rest of the country.

    Our analysis shows that by the end of this decade, our green industries could create up to £170 billion of export sales.

    And according to figures from the Office for National Statistics, by 2050 we could generate 1.4 million green jobs across the UK. That’s one for every person in Birmingham.

    As the Prime Minister said last week, green jobs are the jobs of the future.

    But if we get our strategy wrong, we risk being left on the backfoot as other countries seize the advantage.

    So we need to act now and act fast. Here’s how:

    First, we’re focused on building our green industrial base.

    Right now, we’re creating a pipeline of brilliant opportunities for investors. In our British Energy Security and Net Zero Strategies we set out plans to drive £100 billion worth of private sector investment into green industries, including offshore wind by 2030.

    As you’ve already heard this morning, we’ve given ourselves an ambition of up to 50GW of offshore wind capacity by that same date – more than enough to power every home in the UK.

    Those of you who visited Teesside yesterday will see how we’re supporting development of technology like carbon capture and storage, as well as low-carbon hydrogen. And we’re doing some pioneering work in nuclear.

    But it’s not enough to create these opportunities, we need to tell investors about them too.

    So last year we launched our Investment Atlas, which showcases all the UK has to offer…

    From supporting North East Scotland to becoming a global centre for low carbon hydrogen, to building an electric vehicle charging network powered by solar energy.

    We’re bringing together people, businesses and ideas at events like this and at the Global Investment Summit we held last year.

    The Office of Investment, run by my department, has also helped to land billions of investment in clean technology.

    It’s also recently supported the Qatar Investment Authority to inject £85 million into Rolls Royce’s Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – each of which could power a city the size of Leeds.

    And the UK’s Freeports, which I know are of particular interest to many of you here today, are fast becoming hubs for trade, investment and innovation.

    We’re also building a pro ambition, pro enterprise environment in this country – a place where businesses can thrive and enjoy the stability and certainty for which we’re known around the world.

    With every idea, with every ambitious plan and with every transformed town, we are proving to global investors that the path to a green and prosperous future starts here in the UK.

    I’m proud that my department is helping the world wake up to that message.

    In just two years, DIT has helped to secure nearly £20 billion of green investment globally, creating 11,300 jobs.

    And businesses here today, from Spain to South Korea, like SeAH Wind, JDR, Smulders and Siemens Gamesa, are among those backing Britain and changing lives.

    Apart from growing our green industrial base, we also want to grow our exports.

    There are some fantastic businesses in this room that are already selling to the world, and I know there are more who want to join them.

    One of my biggest priorities as Secretary of State is to help you do that, so my department has set itself a goal of accelerating towards a trillion pounds worth of exports a year earlier than forecast.

    We know that many businesses that could export don’t, so our Export Strategy sets out our roadmap for getting you there.

    We’re also very aware that firms need money to grow. And my colleagues at UK Export Finance will help you get the loans and guarantees you need.

    Outside this building you’ll see the first hydrogen-powered double decker bus in the world, manufactured by Wrightbus, a company from Ballymena in Northern Ireland.

    Thanks to a guarantee from UK Export Finance, Wrightbus has been able to access a £26 million facility from Barclays bank.

    This will mean it can export its vehicles around the world, while supporting green jobs at home. And I was very impressed when I spoke to the team today – I hope to see more of this around the country.

    So we’re sitting at what was two centuries ago the epicentre of the industrial revolution.

    Just a mile from here Robert and George Stephenson built some of the world’s first locomotives from their workshop on South Street – the SpaceX of the 1820s. I hear it’s now a gig venue for those of you who like that sort of thing – it’s not really me, but what you will see here today is that the talent for finding innovative solutions is very much alive and kicking in the North East as it was then, and not just the North East, but the UK.

    So, I hope the investors among you will learn what this country’s green industries have to offer. And the businesses will discover how my department can open new markets for you. I look forward to working with you all.

    Thank you.

  • Drew Hendry – 2022 Speech on the UK-India Trade Deal

    Drew Hendry – 2022 Speech on the UK-India Trade Deal

    The speech made by Drew Hendry, the SNP MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, in the House of Commons on 26 October 2022.

    Welcoming a Minister back to his place is now a standard response, but I welcome the Minister back.

    Increased trade, ties and co-operation between India and the UK are welcome, especially in Scotland. However, that should not be at the expense of human and workers’ rights. Will the Minister belatedly guarantee that issues about human rights, the environment and health and safety, along with climate and equality concerns are fully resolved before any deal is signed?

    Does the Minister really believe that there is no anger and no problem about the Home Secretary’s comments in India that might cause difficulties for the deal?

    Scotch whisky exports to India are already subject to 150% tariffs. New Delhi has threatened even higher tariffs on whisky and gin in retaliation for domestic steel protections. Whisky and gin producers need to know that the UK Government are doing something to reduce those tariffs drastically. What is going on? What will be done to ensure that barriers are not just replaced at Indian state level?

    Jagtar Singh Johal remains in an Indian prison without trial. He has been detained since 2017. The UK has had four Prime Ministers and five Foreign Secretaries since his illegal detention. What is the Minister doing during negotiations to right that wrong?

    Greg Hands

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that list of questions. As ever, the UK’s commitment to workers’ rights in our trade deals and negotiations and in all our international talks remains undiminished. That is fundamental for this country.

    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned whisky tariffs. He did not support the Australia free trade deal, which means a reduction in whisky tariffs. Tariffs on Scotch whisky going to India are currently 150%. I will therefore watch closely his approach to the deal. Our successful removal of the Airbus-Boeing tariffs has hugely benefited the Scotch whisky industry. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman fully supported that.

    The hon. Gentleman raised human rights. At all times, the Foreign Office engages vigorously on the case mentioned and on other cases.

    Let me end with the SNP. On trade deals, it is even worse than Labour. SNP Members have never supported a trade deal concluded by either the European Union or the UK. They did not even support the trade deal between the EU and the UK. They voted for no deal two years ago. They were against the deals with Canada, Korea and South Africa. They did not even support the trade deal between the EU and Ukraine. They also abstained on the Japan and Singapore deals. The SNP is fundamentally against trade and the interests of Scotland as a trading nation.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2022 Speech on the UK-India Trade Deal

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2022 Speech on the UK-India Trade Deal

    The speech made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, in the House of Commons on 26 October 2022.

    I welcome the Minister back to the Department once again, wish him well and thank him for his response. I am also grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question.

    Not only is Diwali this year an important celebration, but it marks another milestone. In January, negotiations on the UK-India trade deal began, with the Government promising to conclude those talks by Diwali—this week. Under this Government, economic growth has been almost non-existent and promised progress on new free trade deals has not materialised. The Government are all talk and no delivery.

    Not only would an agreement with India be potentially worth billions of pounds to the UK economy and would provide new markets for exporters, but it would offer the opportunity to advance key areas of shared interests. Labour Members have also been clear that it should also be an opportunity to raise issues such as workers’ rights, and environmental and climate standards.

    However, it appears that progress on trade talks has stalled—this is yet another product of Conservative infighting. Members across this House are well aware of the comments on overstaying visas made by the Home Secretary, which have caused such offence. Does the Minister agree that the Home Secretary has completely undermined the UK Government’s negotiating position? Will he confirm whether she will be withdrawing those comments? Has a future target date for completion of the deal been agreed? Or is this destined to be kicked into the long grass, along with the promised United States deal? Does he acknowledge that the delay in this deal, and the US deal, means there is no prospect of the Conservative party meeting its manifesto aim of 80% of trade being covered by FTA agreements by the end of this year? Does he not accept the simple truth: on trade, the Conservatives have quite simply broken their promises?

    Greg Hands

    I am delighted to have the opportunity to answer this urgent question and some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. [Interruption.] I will answer all of them. First, on his question about the end of the deal, we have been clear that we have concluded, as we said we would, the majority of the chapters of the deal. Sixteen chapters, across 26 policy areas, have been agreed so far. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, after each round of negotiations, a written ministerial statement, which he can study, has been tabled in this place.

    The right hon. Gentleman asked about visas. Perhaps he is trying to have a second go about the Home Secretary, about whom we have just heard an urgent question. I am not sure whether members of the shadow Cabinet are properly co-ordinating their urgent questions, but the right hon. Gentleman should know that we are talking about mode 4 arrangements. They are not immigration visas. They relate to business visas, not permanent settlement. The terms of the mode 4 arrangements remain an area of active negotiation.

    Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were all talk and no delivery on trade. That amazed me the most. He is obscuring the bigger issue for the Opposition. Let us assume that we get a good deal with India for Britain and that we get a good deal elsewhere, as we have done with Japan, Australia and New Zealand. I have been away from the Department for a year, and in that time Labour has not supported a single trade deal that the Government have undertaken. The Opposition did not support the Japan deal, they were against the Singapore deal and they split three ways on Canada. Only last month, they abstained on the Australia and New Zealand deals.

    The Government are delivering on trade and the Opposition are in chaos and confusion. They have been unable to support a single trade deal to date and it sounds as though they will not support this one.

  • Greg Hands – 2022 Statement on the UK-India Trade Deal

    Greg Hands – 2022 Statement on the UK-India Trade Deal

    The statement made by Greg Hands, the Minister for Trade Policy, in the House of Commons on 26 October 2022.

    First, let me say that it is good to be back at the Department for International Trade.

    India is, of course, an economic superpower, projected to be the world’s third largest economy by 2050. Improving access to this dynamic market will provide huge opportunities for UK business, building on a trading relationship worth more than £24 billion in 2021. That is why we are negotiating an ambitious free trade agreement that works for both countries. We have already closed the majority of chapters and look forward to the next round of talks shortly.

    A strong free trade agreement can strengthen the economic links between the UK and India, boosting the UK economy by more than £3 billion by 2035, helping families and communities. An FTA can cut red tape, making it cheaper for UK companies to sell into India’s dynamic market, helping drive growth and support jobs across every nation and region of the UK. Greater access could help UK businesses reach more than a billion more consumers, including India’s growing middle class, which is estimated to reach a quarter of a billion by 2050, and give them a competitive edge over other countries that do not have a deal with India. An FTA with India supports the Government’s growth strategy, by taking advantage of the UK’s status as an independent trading nation championing free trade that benefits the whole of the UK. We remain clear that we are working towards the best deal for both sides and will not sign until we have a deal that is fair, reciprocal and, ultimately, in the best interests of the British people and the UK economy.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Speech at the Netherlands Trade Mission in London

    Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Speech at the Netherlands Trade Mission in London

    The speech made by Kemi Badenoch, the Secretary of State for International Trade, at the Tobacco Dock in London on 18 October 2022.

    Good afternoon everyone.

    Thank you Ambassador and thank you Liesje for that excellent speech and also an extra special thank you to the Dutch government for organising this event. I think it’s going to be very successful. It’s good to see you all here.

    What I’d start off by saying is welcome to Tobacco Dock. This is a symbol of our trading past. It’s a modern building now, but I think if you can imagine 200 years ago what it would have looked like, full of barrels shipped from all over the world – some no doubt from the Netherlands.

    Today it’s great to see it filled not with barrels but with people, and more importantly with businesses who are helping to shape our shared economic future. The future of the UK and the Netherlands are aligned. Our success relies on each other’s success.

    It’s wonderful to see you all here because it’s the symbolic nature of the steady stream of Dutch firms that are making the UK their home.

    In the last year Heineken and the chemicals company DSM, have injected tens of millions of pounds into their UK operations, creating hundreds of jobs…

    And smaller Dutch firms, in some of the sectors represented here today, like the e-bike manufacturers Van Moof and Ebke, are investing on this side of the North Sea too.

    The UK and the Netherlands exchanged almost £88 billion of goods and services in the year ending March – that makes the Netherlands our fourth largest trading partner.

    And by our most recent reckoning, Dutch business make up over 10pc of this country’s foreign direct inward investment.

    But, as we’re finding today, we can achieve more.

    I want you to know that we want companies, like yours, pioneers in new forms of transport, AI and data analytics, to flourish in our country.

    Why? First, because you will help drive the growth that will support our long-term economic security for both countries.

    Second, because your ideas and expertise will maintain the UK’s place as a technological trail blazer, helping to future proof us against a changing world.

    But I must emphasise, it is not a one-way street because we have something to offer as well.

    In return we can offer you one of the best places in the world for an innovative business to call home.

    We have four of the world’s top universities.

    We have a growing, energetic talent pool…

    We’ve committed through our National Infrastructure Strategy to invest in roads, railways and internet connections – making it easier for businesses both in the UK and the Netherlands to set up and thrive.

    And we’ve created a pro ambition, pro business regulatory environment.

    We’re also looking at how we can unlock opportunities in some of your sectors today:

    For example, last year we launched our AI Strategy, which spells out how we will support the sector and harness its advances.

    I’m sure my international trade team at the back of the room will be delighted to talk more about this.

    They’re a great team. Over the last three years, they’ve helped Dutch businesses to invest in scores of projects in this country – creating over 8,000 jobs.

    Of course, today is also a reminder of the strength of the UK-Dutch relationship.

    Britain’s prosperity didn’t come about by accident.

    It was built through a commitment to democracy, free markets and strong and mutually-beneficial partnerships, like the one we share with the Netherlands.

    We are both monarchies, long-standing allies, and our friendship has lasted from the era of Erasmus to the age of AI.

    For many years now, British expats have been making each other’s country home.

    Our universities welcome students from either side of the North Sea and our academic collaborations, like the one between the Universities of York and Maastricht, are advancing knowledge in critical areas like medical technology and data science.

    The UK and the Netherlands work together to make the world a better place.

    For over six decades, our Royal Navy has prepared large numbers of Royal Dutch Navy warships so they’re ready for operations around the world.

    Today we’re together standing up for freedom by imposing economic sanctions on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine…and our businesses are collaborating on major clean energy projects that will help us keep the lights on.

    We don’t have many differences. But like any good friends, when we come across issues, we work through them.

    So, I know that there is great potential for our relationship to hit new heights.

    As two old friends with a love of enterprise, innovation and independence…we have a real opportunity to create an even deeper and more productive trading partnership, that will serve us both well in future.

    I’ve just been discussing our shared priorities with Liesje in our meeting earlier.

    And I’m looking forward to continuing the conversation about how we can make it even easier for us to cooperate.

    I’ll end by saying that this trade mission is the latest in a long list of pioneering and productive collaborations between our nations…

    In the sixteenth century, the Dutch philosopher Erasmus, discussed with the English scholar Sir Thomas More, ideas that would shape our societies.

    In the 19th century, Vincent van Gogh was inspired by his stay in London to paint ­and influenced countless artists around the world.

    And your businesses, with their amazing advances, show how together we can push forward the boundaries of progress in the 21st.

    Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth once said that our nations are: Innovators, traders and internationalists.

    That’s been true for five centuries. And from everything I’ve seen here today, I know it is more the case now than ever before.

    So, I’ll wish you all a fantastic trade mission. And every success for the future. Thank you.