UK Export Performance The Minister for International Trade (Nigel
Huddleston) I beg to move, That this House has considered UK export
performance. Back in January, the Prime Minister laid out his five
priorities, high among which was to grow the UK economy, creating
better-paid jobs and opportunity right across our country. To do
that, he brought the Government’s business expertise and
world-class trade negotiators together under one roof at the new
Department...Request free trial
UK Export
Performance
The Minister for International Trade ()
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK export performance.
Back in January, the Prime Minister laid out his five priorities,
high among which was to grow the UK economy, creating better-paid
jobs and opportunity right across our country. To do that, he
brought the Government’s business expertise and world-class trade
negotiators together under one roof at the new Department for
Business and Trade, beefing up our teams, refocusing our energies
and better targeting our resources to support businesses and
drive growth. Indeed, growth is the key to unlocking everything
we want for our country. It is at the very heart of everything
that this Government are doing, and there is no better way of
achieving it than by exporting.
Naysayers may try to claim otherwise, but we are already in a
strong position. Last year, the UK was the world’s fifth largest
exporter, up from sixth the previous year. The value of the goods
and services sold by our businesses overseas hit £849 billion in
the 12 months to July, an increase of nearly 16% in current
prices over the 12 months, and our trade deficit almost halved
from September last year to this June. We also sell more services
overseas than any other economy on the planet bar the USA, and
those exports hit an all-time high in 2022.
Let us not forget that all these successes have come at a time of
unique global challenges, from Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine to
the covid recovery. UK businesses have responded with incredible
resilience in the face of persistent global trade shocks.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
The Minister mentioned the UK’s performance in services. We are
the third largest country in the world for artificial
intelligence, behind only the US and China. Does he agree that
investing in our services and exporting them will become only
more important as we move towards the AI revolution?
I could not agree more. That is why in our trade deals we have
such a laser focus on developing services. We need to play to our
strengths. Our goods are world class, but it is in services,
which account for more than 70% of our economy, where we see huge
potential growth. As I travel around the world, I see great
enthusiasm and recognition of incredible quality in our service
sector that we have not yet fully exploited. That will be a key
area of focus for the Government.
The past few years have been not only testament to British
businesses’ resilience and adaptability, but proof of the strong
demand for UK goods and services around the world. As the UK’s
International Trade Minister, I have seen that appetite at first
hand. Last month, I was in Vietnam. I saw how our service
exporters are already providing valuable services to Vietnam’s
growing economy, from the British Council expanding education
opportunities for Vietnamese students to UK architects and
engineers transforming Ho Chi Minh City’s skyline. I saw how,
over the coming years, there will be even more opportunities for
UK businesses to trade with a nation that is set to become the
world’s 20th biggest economy by 2050.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I noticed in the paper last week that very statement that the
Minister made about a young, vibrant economy full of young people
who wish to excel. I know that he always tries to respond
positively to questions that I and others ask in the Chamber, so
let me ask him this: can Northern Ireland be part of the exports
success story? We want to be.
Absolutely. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are focused
very much on supporting and enabling Northern Ireland exporters
to be successful—as, indeed, they have been. No matter where we
go in the world, there is huge enthusiasm for UK goods and
services, and Northern Ireland has some outstanding products that
the world wants to consume. That is why we are focusing not just
on the EU but on the rest of the world, where there is an
insatiable appetite for UK goods and services. We want to make
sure that we deliver those and get benefits from trade deals for
every nation and region of the UK.
The month before I visited Vietnam, I was in India, where I
announced a package of partnerships on electric mobility and
construction, positioning our businesses to sell into those
fast-growing sectors. Everywhere I have visited, from Oman to
Indonesia, I have heard the same story: “We want to buy
British.”
My message to the House is that we are working flat out to help
businesses grab these opportunities—and, best of all, we are
succeeding. We are not scared of challenging ourselves to do more
and to move faster. That is why we have set ourselves a target of
reaching £1 trillion of exports by 2030, around five years
earlier than previously expected. That is an ambitious target,
but one that I feel is achievable with Government and business
working together.
Trade deals are at the heart of our approach, and our programme
of negotiations is one of the largest in the world. We are
negotiating trade deals tailored to the modern UK economy and the
opportunities of individual markets. Of course, each deal is
different, but all of them remove barriers to trade so that we
can create the right conditions for decades of future growth,
security and innovation, to help the UK thrive in a changing
world. We have already secured trade deals with 73 countries as
well as the EU, turbocharging key areas such as services, food,
drink, automotive and life sciences, creating new opportunities
in forward-leaning areas such as data and digital—as my hon.
Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme () mentioned—and enabling our
businesses to sell into the economies of the future.
In July, we took a huge step forward in enhancing our presence in
the Indo-Pacific when the Secretary of State signed the agreement
on our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement
for trans-Pacific partnership. That is a vast free trade area
spanning from Asia to the Americas and now, with our accession,
Europe. The deal will give businesses right across the UK access
to a market of half a billion people—the 21st century’s middle
class, with money in their pockets ready to spend on our goods
and services. This is our biggest trade deal since Brexit and we
are the only European member of this free trade family.
As the House will be aware, we also recently ratified our first
from-scratch trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, sweeping
away the majority of tariffs on goods and services with those
nations and creating even closer and warmer economic
partnerships. The Secretary of State recently returned from
India, where she met her counterpart, Minister Goyal, and
advanced our free trade agreement negotiations, which are now in
their final stages. Beyond that, we are working towards deals
with a host of growing economies, including members of the Gulf
Co-operation Council, Israel and Mexico—one of the world’s
largest consumer markets, with its population projected to reach
nearly 150 million by 2035.
We are using our trade policy to maintain our position as the
world’s second largest services exporter. Having worked in that
field prior to politics, I have seen at first hand our huge
expertise in the sector, and I know that it is vital that we
reinforce our reputation and make it easier for our service
providers to sell around the world. That is why we should all be
excited about our talks for a new, updated trade deal with
Switzerland, for example. There is a huge prize on offer for both
UK and Swiss companies in everything from finance and legal to
accountancy and architecture. The current trade deal is almost 50
years old and really only covers goods. The modern British
economy is over 70% services, which is why we are so active in
upgrading and enhancing our trade deals to suit it.
(Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On modernising trade deals for the future, the Minister will be
aware of the real difficulties our food, farming and fishing
businesses face getting their products into the EU. Why will
Ministers not contemplate negotiating a veterinary agreement to
sort those trade barriers out?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware, first, that we are securing
deals around the world. The EU, as I have repeatedly said, is
important but we are also seeking deals around the world. The EU
will continue to be important and of course the trade and
co-operation agreement is an important part of that relationship,
but we are continuing to have conversations both at EU level and
one on one with individual countries to see how we can remove
market access barriers, and I will come on to that in a
moment.
We are also signing memorandums of understanding with US states,
including Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma and
Utah, with more to come. We are building closer transatlantic
partnerships that will benefit our businesses over the long run,
but of course brokering agreements and engaging in talks are just
one aspect of our work. We know that many British businesses want
to sell overseas but are hindered by obstacles in their trading
partner’s rulebook. At the Department for Business and Trade, we
have a set of teams focusing on overcoming those barriers. From
lifting bans on British bacon to South Korea, to raising
ownership caps on solar projects in the Philippines, we are
removing the barriers holding British exporters back.
That is why the Department is leading a cross-Government effort
to tackle a hitlist of about 100 obstacles standing in our
businesses’ way in every part of the globe. Some of those
barriers might seem small, some much larger, but each and every
change will remove inhibitors to business to help our businesses
to prosper, generate new jobs and pay higher wages. Indeed in the
year to March, we have resolved 178 trade barriers preventing
businesses from selling their goods and services in over 70
countries, and removing just 46 barriers could boost UK exports
by £6.5 billion over the next five years. In the Secretary of
State’s first 200 days in post, we resolved the equivalent of £11
million in barriers every day.
We also recognise that, although many businesses, particularly
smaller ones, want to export, many do not feel confident to do
so. My Department has therefore developed a new export strategy
that includes measures to help businesses to sell overseas. They
include better targeted and transformed export support services
and cross-Government co-operation to get more businesses selling
overseas. We have a network of on-the-ground experts around the
globe who are helping UK companies to understand every market’s
unique opportunities and how to access them, while domestically
thousands of small businesses are turning to our export support
service, the first port of call for firms that want to begin
their exporting journey. Since 2022, our trade advisers have
handled 9,600 market inquiries. We are well aware that
on-the-ground support is vital to encouraging businesses to
export internationally, which is why we have a presence in over
100 international markets. Therefore, we are offering significant
support to help exporters, including through trade advisers and
the export academy, and we provide a wealth of information online
as well. Over 400 export champions across the UK volunteer their
time to share their experience and expertise, inspiring new and
aspiring exporters to follow their lead. In addition, UK Export
Finance, our award-winning export credit agency, is helping to
support companies with export contracts around the world.
The achievements I have listed this afternoon did not happen by
accident: they have only happened by creating the right
environment for UK exports to flourish, and through an
unrelenting focus on free and fair trade and promoting free
markets. We will continue on this road, forging new deals,
overcoming obstacles and creating opportunities so that UK
businesses and the communities they serve can thrive.
7.53pm
(Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
This debate takes place 12 months on from the last Prime
Minister’s kamikaze Budget, which was cheered by so many Members
on the Conservative Benches. It made the cost of living crisis
much worse, biting into the pockets of every family in Britain,
and made tough conditions to do business even tougher. That
Budget was not a one-off; we have now had 13 years of economic
failure, five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, each one worse
than the last, with the business environment getting harder,
barriers to trade going up, increasing red tape and the driving
up of costs, and cuts in business support making it tougher for
Britain’s exporters. Indeed, the former exports Minister, the
hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (), said just last summer that
Ministers were not doing enough to help firms to send goods
overseas.
In 2012, the Conservative party pledged to reach £1
trillion-worth of exports by 2020. It has not happened yet, and
it does not look like it is going to happen in the next five
years either. Indeed the Office for Budget Responsibility thinks
it will not happen until 2035, 15 years late.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition
has repeatedly underlined, growing our economy is crucial to
ending one of the bleakest periods in our country’s recent
economic history and to delivering again the hope of a decent job
and better prospects for all those wanting to work and their
families. Exports are fundamental to that mission. Jobs linked to
exports pay on average higher than average wages in the UK. So I
welcome this debate, even if the analysis the Minister set out
bears little resemblance to the frustrations countless business
leaders have shared with us on this side of the House about the
record of recent Ministers on exports.
The OBR, the Bank of England and the National Institute of
Economic and Social Research have all predicted that exports will
drop this year. I hope they are wrong because, when exports
decline, jobs, investment and wages all decline too. If— Labour
is determined to deliver this—we want the highest sustained
growth in the G7, accelerating growth in our exports is
fundamental. However, in the 13 years since 2010, British export
performance has been outperformed by every member of the G7 apart
from Japan. Figures from the House of Commons Library and from
the United Nations—specifically, the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development—show that Canada saw a 10% growth in its
exports of goods and services from 2012 to 2021, the last
decade-worth of figures that are available, while the US saw
growth in its exports over that period of almost 14%, Italy
almost 16%, France over 16% and Germany almost 23%—but Britain,
just 6%. Over the same decade, the EU as a whole saw growth in
its exports of goods and services of almost 30%. Perhaps the
Minister winding up this debate will tell the House why he thinks
other countries of similar wealth and status have been doing
better at exporting their goods and services than us. One of last
year’s Prime Ministers, , thought poor export figures
were down to a lack of ambition from businesses themselves; I
hope the Minister does not share that view.
Hidden deep in the last White Paper on trade was the admission
that, while the share of global goods exports has dropped for
most G7 countries, the UK share appeared to have declined faster
than most. What was striking about that admission is that
Ministers offered no explanation for it, and the situation does
not appear to have got any better. Figures compiled in the UK by
our own Office for National Statistics reveal that, since just
before the general election, UK goods exports to some of our
biggest markets have dropped significantly: to Germany, our
second biggest market, exports of goods have dropped by 7.5%; to
France, our nearest neighbour—our fifth most important market—our
goods exports are down over 6% since the election; goods exports
to Spain have seen a 9% drop; and to Sweden a 5% drop. There
certainly does not seem to have been any attempt across
Government to understand why others are doing better than us at
exporting.
International Monetary Fund data suggests that, since the last
election, every other member of the G7, in sales to key export
markets near to us, is performing better. British exports of
goods and services to Germany are down by 17% since May 2019. To
France, they are down by 14% since May 2019. American, Canadian
and Italian exports to France and Germany are all up by over 20%.
Even Japan is doing better than we are at selling goods and
services to France and Germany since the general election.
But it is trade with India that perhaps most tellingly lays bare
the steady relative decline in Britain’s trading performance.
Despite better figures on services, our exports of goods to India
actually declined over the last decade. This is a country where
Britain has a long and deep history. There are many barriers to
trade, but it is extraordinary that other countries have been
able to increase their exports of goods while Britain has
not.
These figures make it all the more surprising that Ministers cut
support to help businesses get to trade shows, find new markets
and win their first export contracts. The Government cut support
in recent years to trade bodies wanting to run their own trade
missions, and they cut direct support, too. The trade show access
programme—the key support for businesses new to exporting—had its
funding cut so much that only 10% of the number of businesses
that were helped by the programme under the last Labour
Government appear to be getting help from this Secretary of
State’s trade show access programme.
At the last general election, exporters and the wider British
public were promised by the Conservatives that 80% of all trade
would be conducted under the free trade agreements that Ministers
would have signed by now, and that a trade deal with the US, our
biggest market for goods and services, was going to happen by the
end of last year. Neither has happened. We were promised a deal
with India last year by Diwali. Will there be one by Diwali this
year? Indeed, most of the deals that have been signed by
Ministers were roll-over deals—cut-and-paste jobs. Ministers have
routinely exaggerated the benefits of the trade deals they have
negotiated for exporters.
While the deals that Britain has signed with Japan, Australia and
New Zealand are welcome, particularly for geopolitical reasons,
the quality of the negotiating effort by Ministers has hardly
been inspirational. The deal with Japan, according to the impact
assessment, appears set to benefit its exporters four times more
than British exporters. The former Environment Secretary, the
right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (), admitted that he thought
that Britain, when negotiating the trade deal with Australia,
“gave away far too much for far too little in return”.[—[Official
Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c.
424.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=722&ColumnNumber=424&House=1)
While any increased opportunities for trade are welcome, at just
0.07%, 0.08% and 0.02%, the new trade deals with Japan, Australia
and New Zealand will not lead to huge boosts to Britain’s
economic growth or to great surges in exports. Even the CPTPP
will only boost exports enough to see a 0.08% increase in our
GDP.
Talking to businesses and their representatives, there is
widespread frustration with the trade deal that the Conservatives
negotiated with the European Union. The Institute of Directors
underlined that almost 50% of its members found the UK’s trading
relationship with the EU challenging. The British Chambers of
Commerce, Make UK and the Federation of Small Businesses all
highlight the real difficulties that their businesses are still
having in getting their goods and services into European markets.
Without changes, the trading arrangement with Europe will
continue to compound the challenges our exporters face and risk
cementing further the Government’s record of low growth and
higher taxes. Ministers have been too slow to recognise the
problems in the trade and co-operation agreement, and far too
slow in trying to address them. The failure to sort the rules of
origin issue for our car manufacturers, which the previous debate
addressed, is just the most pressing example.
We on the Opposition Benches are determined to improve conditions
for trade with Europe to make Brexit work. We will not rejoin the
single market or the customs union, but we will use the 2025
review of the trade and co-operation agreement to push for better
terms of trade.
I am interested to hear what the shadow Minister has to say about
the Brexit situation and renegotiating with the EU, because in
the Financial Times at the weekend, we see that “Keir Starmer
pledges to seek major rewrite of Brexit deal”, when in 2020, The
Guardian’s headline was, “Labour will not seek major changes to
UK’s relationship with the EU”. Which is it? Why is the Leader of
the Opposition proposing to extend further uncertainty on British
businesses, who are busy getting on with exporting around the
world?
I am not sure whether that was one of the questions that the
Whips gave out to the hon. Gentleman, but I have made it clear
that we will not rejoin the single market or the customs union,
but we will seek to use the 2025 review to push for better terms
of trade. We will seek to negotiate a veterinary agreement with
the EU to help in particular hard-pressed food, farming and
fishing businesses. We will accelerate efforts to secure mutual
recognition agreements to make it easier for our professionals to
work in EU markets.
Specifically on Europe, many businesses are concerned by
Ministers’ plans to unilaterally extend a Windsor framework
requirement for food and drink to be labelled “not for EU” this
time next year when goods are sold across England, Scotland and
Wales. They are particularly concerned because many say that they
were not consulted. This measure will apply to a large share of
food products in shops, including meat, dairy, pet food, fish and
fruit and veg. Given that businesses are warning that this could
increase costs, as they will not be able to supply identical
products for sale in both EU markets and the UK, it would be good
to know which businesses and business groups were consulted, and
what their views were.
The biggest challenge and opportunity that Britain faces is
climate change. British businesses could be at the heart of the
race to net zero. Indeed, the global transition to green
technologies is projected to create new industries worth £1
trillion by the end of this decade alone. However, when the
Secretary of State called net zero targets “arbitrary” and
“unilateral economic disarmament” only last year and could not
deliver even one new offshore wind farm in last week’s energy
auction, we are not exactly in the best place to take the climate
science innovation of British businesses, universities and other
innovators and export them to the rest of the world. We on the
Opposition Benches would create a nationwide network of climate
export hubs to support every region in the country to secure new
skilled jobs and opportunities from green trade. In particular,
we need to make sure of help for trade and exporters in every
region of the UK. Only 1.4% of exporters are from the north-east
and less than 5% are from the midlands.
There is remarkable talent in every part of our country, yet
wages here no longer keep pace with the hopes and dreams of the
British people. The Government are delivering one of the worst
rates of economic growth of any country in the G7. Their own
Ministers believe they are failing British exporters. It does not
have to be this way. Our ambition on the Opposition Benches is
for a dynamic trading Britain, where businesses are not held back
by Government negotiating failure or a lack of support at key
moments. There are exceptional businesses in this country, and
they deserve better than what Ministers are offering. Instead of
pushing up trade barriers and pushing away investment, and
instead of cutting support to businesses to export, we on the
Opposition Benches will back British exporters. We will have the
back of British exporters.
8.07pm
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister. I can assure him
that I am quite capable of highlighting Labour’s flip-flops and
U-turns by myself, but I thank him for the insinuation, and for
the suggestion that I might be up to writing questions for the
Whips one day.
I start by thanking both Ministers on the Government Front Bench
for their engagement with Newcastle-under-Lyme businesses in the
past year. The Minister for International Trade, my hon. Friend
the Member for Mid Worcestershire (), who opened the debate,
came to visit, I think, six constituencies in Staffordshire on a
whirlwind tour earlier this summer. He visited Langley Alloys in
my constituency, which has 70% of its turnover overseas, in
countries ranging from Brazil to New Zealand—a country with which
we have signed a genuinely revolutionary trade deal in recent
months. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my
hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton () welcomed a number of
impressive businesses from Newcastle-under-Lyme down here to
Westminster for a business roundtable either towards the end of
last year or early this year, and I thank him for his engagement
on that.
The way that the Department for Business and Trade is working to
support individual firms in areas across the country, including
areas in need of levelling up such as Newcastle-under-Lyme, is
testament to how this new Department is working across the entire
country to support exports, and I welcome that. Exports are now
back to pre-covid levels, and the Department’s export strategy is
working. It looks like we are target in the race to £1 trillion
by 2030. It is a challenging target, but the rates we have seen
in recent years suggest we will be able to reach it.
In dealing with the European Union, this Government under the
Prime Minister’s leadership have been smoothing over a number of
the residual issues from the EU. I think we can all concede that,
due to a little bit of bad faith on both sides, the process of
getting the deal with the EU was not as smooth as we would have
liked. However, with the Windsor framework we are seeing an
improvement in trade with Northern Ireland. The Horizon deal only
two weeks ago was hugely welcomed by the scientific community
with what it implies for our scientific and artificial
intelligence industries, which I mentioned earlier, and our
services in the future.
I was with the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee in
America last week. We visited Boston and Washington DC to speak
about artificial intelligence in the light of our current inquiry
into the future governance of AI. When we were in DC, I met UK
Research and Innovation, which has an office there. It is clear
that it is doing a huge amount of work to prepare the ground for
investments by Britain in America, and conversely investments by
American firms in Britain—building links in the technologies of
the future. Of course, the USA remains this country’s single
biggest destination for exports, with £168 billion of exports in
2022, the majority of which is in services.
I will touch a little more on what we heard last week. The
Americans are very impressed with where we are on artificial
intelligence and think that our proposed model of regulating by
the use of AI—we are working through this from the White
Paper—rather than, like the EU, trying to regulate the concept of
AI, is the right way to go. We heard repeatedly from lawmakers,
the Administration and businesses that they welcome the summit
that the Prime Minister will host at Bletchley Park in
November.
That brings me to the Minister’s point about how important
digital agreements are for the future. We have signed a digital
agreement with Singapore and included significant digital
chapters in the deals that we have done with Australia, New
Zealand and Japan.
The free trade agreements that we have been proposing are
possible only because of Brexit. As the Minister said, we have
signed 73 of them—a number of them are roll-over agreements, but
a number of them are new—and of course we have signed the deal
with the EU. These free trade deals offer British businesses,
including those in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme, new
opportunities. I know that the Department is working with
businesses to help them both to understand the mechanics of the
free trade agreements and to realise the opportunities of them.
Although the numbers may start small, free trade agreements are
additive, because each year more firms get into exporting, so
their true benefits come in the long term. For example, we
project more than £3 billion for the Australia and New Zealand
deals by 2035. Of course, by signing up to the CPTPP, we have
even more opportunities for businesses.
Although this is an export debate, we should highlight that trade
deals are good for UK consumers too. By joining the CPTPP, we
will see lower prices on imports of things such as fruit juices
from Chile and Peru in South America, and chocolate from Mexico.
Trade deals therefore work for British consumers as well as
British exporters. The Government are delivering for businesses,
resolving the issues we have seen with the EU and opening new
markets.
However, as I suggested in my intervention on the shadow Minister
earlier, I fear that Labour wants to return the country to all
the uncertainty that we had from 2016 to 2019. It is pretty clear
from reading the previous remarks of the Leader of the Opposition
that Labour’s ambition is to unpick and ultimately reverse
Brexit, as well as to sign up for hundreds of thousands of
additional migrants from the EU, as we saw last week. I quoted
those two headlines, with the FT saying, “Starmer pledges to seek
major rewrite of Brexit deal”. I think that is the last thing
that businesses and politics need. We have come to a period of
stability after the turmoil following the referendum in 2016; we
do not need to go back to those times. Of course, he said in 2020
that Labour would not seek major changes to the UK’s relationship
with the EU.
That, I am afraid, is yet another flip-flop from the Leader of
the Opposition, but given that he campaigned to remain and stood
up at Labour conference calling for a second referendum with an
option to remain, I do not think we should be surprised. How can
anybody trust what he says? I have no sympathy politically with
the people on the Labour left, but he has reneged on all the
commitments he made to them when running for the Labour
leadership. He stitched them up like he wants to stitch up the
British people, and that gives him no credibility and no
integrity when it comes to negotiating for Britain.
There have been many returnees to the shadow Cabinet in recent
weeks—they refused to serve under the right hon. Member for
Islington North () because of the tolerance of
antisemitism in the party at the time, but the Leader of the
Opposition served willingly. He even said:
“I’m not going to rank . He’s a colleague and a
friend and he’s led us through some really difficult times in the
Labour party.”
But the shadow Chancellor, the shadow Home Secretary, the shadow
Health Secretary and the new shadow Work and Pensions Secretary
refused to serve under the former leader. They did the right
thing, but I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition did the
expedient thing. He has tried to pull the wool over people’s eyes
about that. He is trying to do that again on Brexit and for
British businesses. We must not let him get away with it.
8.13pm
(Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for
Newcastle-under-Lyme (). I am not sure that I can be
quite as animated as he was during his speech, but I will do my
best.
The issue was clearly laid out by the shadow Minister, the hon.
Member for Harrow West (), with the stats on exports.
The Government are incredibly positive about how wonderful
exports are, but the reality is, when we are compared to G7
partners, the stats tell a very sorry tale.
Of course, we are the only country in the world dealing with the
hangover from covid—no, wait, that is not right. We are the only
country in the world dealing with the impact of the war in
Ukraine—no, that is not right, either. We are the only country in
the world dealing with demographic challenges—no, that is not
right, either. The thing is, we are the only country in the world
dealing with removing ourselves from our largest trading partner.
That is the differential. That is why we are not seeing the
growth in trade.
The Minister talked about the fact that there are agreements in
place with 73 countries. Fabulous. We left the EU, which has
agreements in place with 72 countries. So with all that work and
all the running around that Government Ministers have been doing,
we currently have one more country with which we have a trade
agreement in place than the EU. It almost seems as if the immense
amount of uncertainty that everybody—individuals and
businesses—has been put through was not really worth it after
all.
We could go back to 2016 and make different decisions about how
to make Brexit work—six different leaders of Labour and
Conservative colours have spoken about it—and how to make the
best future for the economy, the wellbeing of people throughout
these isles. What the Government should have done was ask, “What
do we export the most? What is our trading relationship with the
EU?” We exported a lot of services to the EU before Brexit. So,
if it had been me taking decisions on this, I would have done
everything I could to try to protect those services. I would also
have done everything I could to protect those communities that
would be decimated by the loss of something, such as fish
processing—and whisky, which the Minister mentioned a moment ago.
The Government should have been focusing on those things.
Instead, they put forward that their No. 1 priority in
negotiating Brexit was to end freedom of movement. They have had
to suffer the economic losses that go along with that. So they
have sacrificed the beneficial position we were in before Brexit,
affecting a number of businesses and individuals as a result, not
just because of the decision not to prioritise services but for
the loss of freedom of movement. That has meant that our farmers,
for example, are struggling to find people to work on their
farms. It is the same issue in food processing and across some of
our most rural communities, which are being decimated as a result
of how much harder it is for people to come and live and work in
the United Kingdom.
In the automotive debate, we heard comments about the rules of
origin. I first raised the rules of origin in relation to the
automotive industry in this House five or six years ago, and the
problem has not been solved. That level of uncertainty has been
hanging over the automotive industry since then, and there is no
clear answer. The clock is ticking; there is a very short period
of time before this kicks in, and decisions need to be made. At
that point, I spoke about diagonal cumulation. We need to ensure
that there is certainty or we will continue to see those large
manufacturing companies with bases all over the world choosing to
invest in improving their factories in European countries rather
than those in the United Kingdom. It has been decimating for our
manufacturing.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme
mentioned the numbers—£3 billion—in relation to the Australia and
New Zealand trade deals. The Office for Budget Responsibility
estimates that we will lose £100 billion as a result of Brexit—£3
billion does not touch the sides of that number and the 4% drop
in GDP that we see as a result. Whenever trade deals like these
are signed, we might see an improvement in exports. In fact,
after the Japan trade deal was signed, we saw a reduction in
exports to Japan, so the jury is out on whether they work.
However, regardless of whether there is an increase in exports,
throwing beef and lamb farmers under the bus is not the way to
go.
According to the OBR, there is likely to be a 15% reduction in
trade intensity. The OBR has those figures as a result of the
Government’s economic plans, the deals signed and the proposals
in place. Our food processors and producers, who are producing
the best food in the world—as a Scottish MP, hon. Members would
expect me to say that—are being massively undercut because the
Government have the wrong priorities when signing trade deals. We
have already seen beef exports go down by 22% since the deal was
signed. The price of producing lamb in Australia has reduced
again, which will undercut our farmers and make us less likely to
become a nation self-sufficient in food production, because it
will cost us more to rear the lamb. That is a problem. The
Government have prioritised the wrong things.
The Government have missed the opportunity of renewables, and not
just in terms of capitalising economically on climate change and
the move towards a just transition. In fact, they have missed the
opportunity to invest in amazing innovations in renewable
technologies and to export them around the world. During the oil
and gas boom, Aberdeen in north-east Scotland became known for
exports. My constituency was top for the number of patents per
head of population. There is an amazing amount of research and
development as a result of the oil and gas industry. We are
seeing declining amounts of oil and gas and an increase in the
number of countries looking to capitalise on and use renewable
technologies. Because we are not seeing investment in things such
as carbon capture, utilisation and storage, we are not able to
stay ahead of the curve and use that tech to assist other
countries around the world in the way that we were able to do
with oil and gas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
()
I am slightly confused about the hon. Lady’s policies and those
of her party. I think she said that oil and gas production was
coming down. Is it not her party’s policy to prevent any new
exploration of oil and gas in Scottish fields? Is her own policy
in disagreement with that of her party? I am very confused on
that matter.
The party’s policy is that every new oil and gas licence should
go through a rigorous environmental assessment. As much as the
Conservatives try to paint it as something else, that is the
party’s policy. The vast majority of my constituents who contact
me would like no new licences to be granted. Far more
constituents contacted me to tell me that Cambo was a disaster
and should not go ahead. I have a large university in my
constituency, and a huge number of people from all around the
world, who are massively concerned about the impacts of climate
change. I urge the Minister to come and spend some time in my
constituency, to see the passion on the ground for a just
transition.
My constituents really like having jobs. Most people do. It is
great to be able to take a salary home. My constituents, in the
main, are not terribly fussed if the job that pays them lots of
money is in oil and gas or in the renewables sector. When I talk
to people, they tell me that they would like a good job. Those
people in the oil and gas industry ask for their tickets to be
transferable so that they can go to offshore wind just as easily
as they can go to oil and gas platforms. The UK Government have
failed to capitalise on that. They failed to invest in CCUS. In
fact, back in 2015 the then Chancellor pulled the plug on CCUS
without even telling the industry. He stood at that Dispatch Box
during the Budget and did that.
The UK Government have failed to prioritise improving our food
exports. If they were serious about supporting our farmers, they
would do everything they could to ensure them access to the
labour that they need to pick the fruit, butcher the pork and
export all that wonderful produce. If the UK Government were
serious about supporting people and businesses in Scotland, they
would have come forward far quicker with the decision on Horizon.
They would have prioritised ensuring that our world-leading
scientists across these islands, and particularly in my
constituency, continue to have access to those research grants.
They would have ensured that they could continue to work closely
with European counterparts to develop the really cool tech of the
future and to develop drugs for Alzheimer’s and heart disease in
my constituency. All those things would have been prioritised by
the UK Government if they cared about supporting individuals and
businesses. They would have taken these things seriously, and
they would have prioritised those industries rather than simply
prioritising the removal of freedom of movement.
A number of Members have mentioned making Brexit work. It is not
possible to make Brexit work. We cannot make Brexit work, because
Brexit does not work. Various Conservative leaders have stood
there saying, “Make Brexit work.” The Labour party has stood
there saying “Make Brexit work.” It cannot work. It is not the
positive economic future that we want. The Scottish National
party will continue to stand for being in the single market. We
will continue to support being members of that single market and,
yes, having freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is great for
economic benefit. In nine out of the last 10 years—and eight
years running—Scotland has had the highest levels of foreign
direct investment of any area, country or region in the United
Kingdom other than London. That is because the Scottish
Government are doing everything they can to ensure that we
continue to trade and export, and continue to have a great
relationship with as many countries in the world as we possibly
can.
The UK Government do not even have a published trade strategy
document that pulls everything together. If they had an internal
trade strategy document, it would be great if they would publish
it, so that we can all see their strategy. Conservative Members
say that there are missed opportunities in international trade
because they are not prioritising work on selling renewables
around the world. Clearly, something is missing. It would be
great to see that strategy so that we can provide the appropriate
scrutiny. If they continue to hide it, no one can scrutinise it.
We do not know what they are trying to do because they are not
willing to tell us and share the strategy with us, if they have
one.
The only way to ensure that trade with the EU continues to go up
and to bring back freedom of movement is for Scotland to free
itself from Westminster and take its own decisions on immigration
and trade, ensuring we have as close a relationship with the EU
as possible, not by making Brexit work but by being back as a
member of the EU and the single market. That will protect our
economy and our freedom of movement, and ensure our scientists
have the best possible access to collaboration. That will ensure
our farmers have a level of protection they do not currently have
in being able to export food without whatever is going to happen
with the Windsor framework, which could be disastrous for our
farmers. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 continues to
go over the top of what the Scottish Government would like for
our future, our farmers and our food producers. I recommend that
everybody looks very closely at the SNP’s next manifesto, in
which we will lay out those policies even more clearly than I
have this evening.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Mr Shannon, it is so lovely to have you on so early in the
debate. [Laughter.]
8.29pm
(Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much for that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all
right hon. and hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, for
their contributions, and especially the Minister for setting the
scene so well, as he often does.
I do not want to put a dampener on proceedings, but I have to put
on record my concerns about the Northern Ireland protocol. I say
that gently, because I believe we are at a stage in negotiations
where we are trying to find a way forward and I hope they will be
successful. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme () spoke of his hopes that the
Northern Ireland protocol would move forward. There is nothing
wrong in hoping that, but the reality is very, very different. I
say that very gently to him and he knows where I am coming from.
I am very pleased to learn of the export rates and I also note
that Members believe we can improve on them. From a Northern
Ireland perspective, the notion of export performance is
intrinsically linked with the Windsor framework. It is important
that I give an honest Northern Ireland perspective in a gentle
way to the House. I always try to be constructive in my comments.
I do not try to be aggressive or nasty, or say things that are
unhelpful to the debate, because we hope that things will work
out.
A House of Lords Select Committee report, released in the summer,
shows the depth of the problems with our exports caused by EU
interference, something we were keen to shake off with Brexit. As
a Brexiteer, I want the same Brexit as England, Scotland and
Wales, and we do not have that for Northern Ireland. The report
highlights a number of significant issues. Just last week, Lord
Dodds, the speaker at our association annual general meeting,
outlined where we are very clearly. One key conclusion is that
the Windsor framework makes things worse for many businesses
compared with what they have experienced up to now. Honestly,
that is the situation for many of the businesses in my
constituency. There is a way forward, which my party has outlined
through our seven-point plan. With the Prime Minister, the
Secretary of State and all the other Ministers involved, we are
seeking to find that way forward.
The original protocol was unworkable and could not be implemented
without major damage to our economy. That led to the grace
periods and easements. Now those are to be done away with and
replaced with the more onerous and burdensome Windsor framework
provisions. The Windsor framework renders Northern Ireland worse
off in terms of the Irish sea border, and creates greater checks
and barriers to trade with the rest of the UK compared to what we
experienced thus far, even if it theoretically improves on the
original version of the protocol, which was unworkable in any
case. Some may believe that that has no effect on UK exports, but
Northern Ireland is an integral part of the supply chain. The
Minister, in response to my intervention, made that very clear
and I welcome that. He stated very clearly that we want Northern
Ireland to have all the advantages England, Wales and Scotland
have in export trade. That would be really good news, if only
that was where we were.
If we cannot, in pharmaceuticals for instance—engineering is a
second one—source our medical ingredients, we cannot produce the
vaccines or veterinary products and supply the global market as
we currently do. That affects our global output, never mind the
fact that without a permanent solution, the supply of over 50% of
veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland may be discontinued,
posing a risk to both animal and human health, and the agri-food
supply chains and the resulting transfer to exportation. My hon.
Friend the Member for North Antrim () has spoken at some length in different questions to
different Ministers, including the Prime Minister, on the
problems for veterinary health.
If we cannot source steel and parts to carry out our engineering,
which delivers parts in many industries from aerospace to boats,
to defence weapons and any number of other chains in which we
have been, to date, an integral part of the UK machine for
export, and if we have divergence in regulation between Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and
Ireland, there is a valid underlying fear that Northern Ireland
will find itself in a no man’s land between Great Britain and the
EU, placing the competitiveness of Northern Ireland firms and
their complex supply chains in jeopardy.
I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland
Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), has undertaken to
highlight our global potential with investment in Invest Northern
Ireland’s new offices in Seoul—the Minister for International
Trade, who opened the debate, referred to the potential for trade
with South Korea; that is good news, and we hope to be part of
it—to learn how Government funding is boosting Northern Ireland’s
profile in the Asia-Pacific region and helping to connect
Northern Ireland businesses to the world. He announced back in
December that £8 million of funding from the New Deal for
Northern Ireland would enable Invest Northern Ireland to expand
Northern Ireland’s presence on the international stage as it
supports Northern Ireland businesses in new locations from Paris
to Toronto, as well as providing additional trade advisory
support in their Belfast offices.
I know that this is not this Minister’s responsibility, but let
me just say that I am keen to see a trade deal with India—with
one proviso. I will mention, in a Westminster Hall debate on
religious persecution which starts at 9.30 am tomorrow, what has
been happening recently in the Indian district of Manipur. I
consider it imperative for any trade deal with India to enshrine
the preservation of human rights, the equality of rights, and
freedom of religious belief. Some 60,000 people have been
displaced, and some 360 Christian churches have been damaged. I
want a trade deal with India; everyone wants one; but if we are
to have one, it must be conditional. It is disappointing that, as
I understand it—although I will not pose this question to the
relevant Minister in Westminster Hall tomorrow morning—our Prime
Minister never once raised the issue of freedom of religious
belief, even after all that violence, destruction and
displacement.
By and large, we should welcome the Government’s UK export
performance, but I do want to make the case for Northern Ireland.
I ask our Minister to implore his colleagues in the Cabinet to
act, and to ensure that Northern Ireland can play her full and
functioning part in the story of UK global exports, from which we
are currently precluded. We have the potential to become so much
more in a post-Brexit UK, but we have a great deal to do, and in
my opinion that should start with our ending the strong-arming of
Europe, embracing true global trade and allowing Northern Ireland
to play her part. We deserve that, as loyal British subjects. I
love telling people that I am a member of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I am a British citizen, and I
am proud to be British—but I want to be proud to be British and
have the same equal rights. That is my request.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Minister.
8.37pm
(Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank the committed colleagues on both sides of the House who
are here on a quiet Monday evening for their contributions to the
debate. It has provided an important opportunity for us to
recognise that, for all the Government’s talk about signing free
trade agreements across the world and bringing British businesses
a step closer to selling to new markets with fewer hurdles, the
UK’s export performance is not actually looking very promising. I
ask Conservative Members who are advocates of trade and exports
to look carefully at their own leadership. If they did so, they
would realise how much Britain and British industry have been let
down.
Let us look at the facts. The Office for Budget Responsibility
predicts that exports will fall this year and again next year,
and that over the next three years, with more of the same Tory
failure in our economy, the UK’s growth will be weak at best.
Tory Governments are quick to claim that they are the “the party
of business”, but when I talk to businesses in the city of
Manchester and across Great Britain, that is not what I hear. The
Prime Minister and his Government, and all those Prime Ministers
of the last few years who came before him, promised “growth,
growth, growth”, but what do exporting businesses see? They see
out-of-control inflation, no progress on trade deals, and a
Government who not only do not take their concerns seriously, but
sometimes cannot even be bothered to meet them to hear those
concerns. They see failure after failure, and because of all
that, Britain is set to be 15 years late in achieving its £1
trillion export target.
The Government claim to believe that only trade can create jobs,
drive growth and deliver the long-term prosperity that
communities across the UK have been crying out for, but when it
comes to delivering it, they are nowhere to be seen. It is true
that the UK has started negotiations for trade agreements with
some of the world’s largest and growing economies such as the US,
India, Canada, Mexico, the Gulf Co-operation Council, Israel and
Switzerland. We left the European Union in 2020. How many of
these trade deals have been concluded? None.
The fact that we have been unable to conclude a deal with one of
our closest allies, the United States, is frankly embarrassing,
yet the Prime Minister freely admitted on his way to meeting
President Biden that a trade deal with the world’s largest
economy was not “a priority”. That says it all, doesn’t it?
Despite the UK’s deep and historic ties to India, the Prime
Minister failed to make any progress on a trade deal there last
week. I guess that was not a priority either. And in Europe, our
next-door neighbour and largest trading partner, UK businesses
are far less competitive and swamped in red tape because the
Government failed to get a decent Brexit deal. Again, not a
priority. So long as trade and exports are treated as unimportant
by the Government, there will be no new markets, goods exports
will continue to fall and UK businesses will suffer. The last
time more than 30% of businesses saw increased export sales was
at the end of 2018, almost five years ago.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I very much
enjoyed our trip to the United States earlier this summer as part
of the British-American Parliamentary Group exchange. He will
know that the reason there is not a trade deal with America is
because of the state of American politics and the protectionism
we have seen from the Democratic Administration through the
Inflation Reduction Act. Also, America is unlikely to negotiate a
free trade deal in the run-up to the presidential election next
autumn, but that does not mean that this Government are not
ambitious for that deal in the longer term. I welcome the hon.
Gentleman to his new role, but he has to appreciate that trade
deals take two to tango. This country has always prioritised free
trade and we will do as many deals as we can with like-minded
countries.
I thank the Member for his intervention. I too enjoyed our trip
together—I learned so much about the American system—but can I
remind him that that trade deal was in his manifesto?
The truth is that British exporters are at the end of their
tether with this Government, and with the meagre support services
that our Department for Business and Trade is providing. They
find themselves unable to access up-to-date information and they
are struggling to find guidance on how best to get their goods
out into the world. It is worth noting that trade and export are
not about big businesses. They are about the small and medium
enterprises that make up 99.9% of UK private sector businesses.
These businesses bear the biggest brunt of the Tories’ hopeless
approach to improving export performance. Between April and June
of this year, over half of all SME exporters saw no change in
overseas sales, and almost a quarter reported a fall in sales.
That is 16 million people employed in SMEs who are being failed
by the Tories, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West
() set out at the beginning of
the debate, it does not need to be this way.
Businesses of all sizes should be able to have faith in a
Government who work for them, who are pro-trade, pro-business and
pro-workers and, crucially, who take a leading role in driving
exports from towns and cities across the UK. A Labour Government
would not only introduce a binding duty on trade negotiators to
help deliver economic opportunities across the whole of the UK;
we would also ensure that each new trade deal was accompanied by
a regional strategy with support for businesses, maximising the
benefits from trade deals across our nations. Sadly, this is not
the Tory Government’s priority.
So much needs to be done to restore the faith of British
businesses in our trade and export capabilities, and to show the
world that the UK is open for business. I am afraid that, once
again, the Tory party has shown that it is just not up to it.
8.44pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade
()
It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate. I thank all
the Members who have contributed.
Obviously, the House is united on the importance of exports to
our economy, but it differs somewhat on how we go about it. I was
interested in the remarks of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member
for Harrow West (). He talked about 13 years of
economic failure. He can choose his own opinions, but he cannot
choose his own facts. May I give him some facts? We are now the
eighth largest manufacturer in the world; we have moved from
ninth. We have just overtaken France, which is a bit of a
double-win. We are the fifth largest global trader in the world,
up from sixth in 2021. We are the third fastest growing economy
in the G7 since the pandemic. Since 2016, we have grown faster
than Germany and France and, since 2010, we have grown the third
fastest in the G7. The only countries ahead of us since the
pandemic are the US and Canada. Of all the major economies in the
European Union, we have a great story on growth. Those are three
things we have achieved on growth. Those are the facts.
The hon. Gentleman may want to depress the nation. I have met
many pessimists in my life. I have never yet met a happy
pessimist or a successful pessimist. The same goes when trying to
get elected. The public want a dealer in hope, not these
Jeremiahs who are determined to talk this country down. That is
deeply unhelpful and deeply incorrect.
I have some more facts. The hon. Gentleman talks about export
performance since 2010—he said there have been 13 years of
failure—but it is 31% up in real terms. How is that a failure? I
have a great deal of time for him away from the knockabout of
politics, but his quotes were all about goods. He never touched
on services. He will recognise that 80% of our economy is not
goods but services, which is hugely important. It is why our
export performance, in real terms, is growing.
The hon. Gentleman said that exports are down this year. In the
12 months to July 2023—these are facts, not projections—there
were £849 billion of exports, up 16% on the previous year. In
this debate, we should focus on the facts.
The UN figures are actually for goods and services, so the UK is
sixth in the G7, at 6% growth, behind Canada, the US, Italy,
France and Germany, on 22%. Those are UN figures on goods and
services.
Again, the hon. Lady is picking out certain figures. May I give
her a figure? Does she know the UK’s largest export in the food
and drink sector? It is whisky, at £6.3 billion. Fifty-three
bottles of whisky are exported every single second. It is a huge
success story and one that we are determined to mirror across the
economy, and this is the strategy we are employing to do it.
As the Minister for International Trade so eloquently laid out,
we are pursuing a trade policy that is unrelentingly focused on
growth. I am proud that this Government have such high ambitions
in this area but, to borrow an analogy from the Secretary of
State, free trade agreements are like motorways—they work only if
we get cars driving up and down them. That is why our Department
is focusing on how to create the environment that exporters need
to succeed. We must also ensure that the right support is in
place.
I have seen at first hand the appetite for export growth in the
UK, both in my work before I entered Parliament and today as
Minister for enterprise, markets and small business. That is why
the Department for Business and Trade has established a dedicated
free trade agreement utilisation team to help to improve FTA
awareness and take-up. The team’s first major project has been to
develop new business guidance resources for the UK-Australia FTA,
working with businesses and business representative organisations
to ensure it captures everything businesses want and need to
know, and in business-friendly language. Similar work is under
way to prepare for the entry into force of the comprehensive and
progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—TPP is far
snappier—to ensure that businesses are equipped with the
knowledge they need on fast-growing markets and the benefits of
that deal for them.
We understand that taking a business global can be a daunting
prospect—if you’ve never exported before, where do you start? You
start where Wold Top Brewery, in my constituency, started. It is
run by the wonderful Mellor family, a farming family from near
Hunmanby. They started making their own beer because they had
grain on their farm and an artesian well. They make some
fantastic beer, including Wold Gold, which I heartily recommend.
It has been in the Strangers Bar and I will tell you when it will
be again, Mr Deputy Speaker. They used our trade advisers to
start exporting to Italy very early on in their business
growth—they did not wait until they had conquered the UK
market—and they have been hugely successful, so much so that they
are expanding now into Filey Bay whisky, a wonderful whisky,
which, again, is exported around the world. That is the kind of
export strategy we want and it is supported by the Government’s
export strategy, “Made in the UK, Sold to the World”, which is
built around a 12-point plan to give firms of any size the
support they need on their exporting journey, be it practical,
promotional or financial.
Our newly expanded Export Support Service is a one-stop shop for
exporting advice. As well as an online library of resources
available 24/7, our expert trade advisers are on hand with free
and impartial advice. Since April 2022, they have handled 9,600
market inquiries. They work closely with our network of in-market
specialists across 100 countries globally to share market
insights, identify opportunities and connect businesses with
buyers. We have also rolled out our export academy across the
country, offering SMEs a programme of masterclasses, roundtables
and networking events.
A special mention must go to our fantastic community of export
champions for all they do. I have had the great pleasure of
meeting some of them in person, such as those from Briggs
Automotive Company, in Liverpool, and we are very grateful for
all they do. As the Minister for International Trade mentioned,
this is all underpinned by the important work of the Government’s
award-winning export credit agency, UK Export Finance, which
provided £6.5 billion to support 532 UK companies win exports and
trade internationally. Eighty-four per cent of those companies
were SMEs, and 82% were based in constituencies such as mine and
yours, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, the Government have also
backed the British Business Bank to provide more than £12.2
billion of finance to more than 96,000 small businesses,
including more than 100,000 start-up loans since 2012.
I wish briefly to pick up on some of the points made in the
debate. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West,
said, “Why not enter into a veterinary agreement?” If he wants to
become a rule taker again, he can do that, but it would rule out
things such as gene editing, which was a fantastic opportunity
for this nation. That is what he has to try to square the circle
of, rather than just playing both ends against the middle.
As for the difficulties of trading with the EU, there is no doubt
that those are abating. Eurotunnel said earlier this year that
trade between the EU and the UK is back to where it was
pre-Brexit in terms of the speed of processing lorries. Of course
this is not all within our gift and the EU negotiates in its
interests. Apparently, he is going to take a completely new
approach. He says they are not going to join the single market or
the customs union, yet he is going to wave a magic wand and all
these problems will disappear. As my hon. Friend the Member for
Newcastle-under-Lyme () pointed out beautifully, the
Labour party’s approach is to see which way the wind is blowing.
First, the Leader of the Opposition was a remainer, then he
wanted a second referendum, then he made the case for free
movement of people, and now he wants a complete renegotiation of
the trade and co-operation agreement, even though earlier he said
he did not.
The approach is simply all over the place—all at sea—despite the
fact that we have made huge progress since the trade and
co-operation agreement, not least because of the Windsor
framework. I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member
for Strangford () about that, but it is a good basis for co-operation
in future and it is very popular with businesses. There have been
other steps forward, including the inclusion of the UK in the
Horizon programme. There are a variety of issues that we need to
work through and the Department is working hard on those. In
terms of the trade agreement with India, we are very keen, but it
is about the deal, not the date, as we have said many times, and
getting that deal right. We have just completed the 12th round of
negotiations, so I hope there will soon be some positive news
about getting that deal together.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North () made some interesting
points. She made a point about the EU agreement and how wonderful
it was, and then talked about services. Well, the EU agreement
did not even cover services, or not to any extent, and the
Swiss-EU deal did not cover services at all—a 50-year-old
agreement. The UK is 80% services, so it is important to look at
the issue in the round and do what is right for the UK, not what
is right for Germany. Such a deal might suit Germany but it does
not suit the UK—we stand up for what is right for the UK.
The hon. Lady talked about oil and gas as a failing industry, and
then would not commit to any new licences, which seems very
strange. She talked about farming and said people would be better
off inside the EU, but when we discussed the potential for
Brexit, that was not the perspective of my farmers. She
completely ignored fishing. Is the SNP’s perspective that we
should rejoin the common fisheries policy? That would be highly
unpopular with the fishing industry in Scotland.
Our export strategy is working. We hit £815 billion of exports in
2022 and we plan to go further this year. Our ranking as second
in the world for exports of services in 2022 highlights that
further. We want businesses to be ambitious in their exporting.
The strategy laid a challenge for businesses and Government to
“race to a trillion” exports per year by 2030. We need the
support of all types of businesses, in all parts of the UK, to
make that happen. Unlocking the UK’s exporting potential will
help to level up the country and boost the UK’s economy, and I
look forward to seeing how much further we can go.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered UK export performance.
|
