debates/debates2025-07-17a conversation_7
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-17)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-17a conversation_7

Ben Coleman:What progress his Department has made on implementing recent trade agreements. \p Douglas Alexander: The UK continues to make progress across its trade agreements programme to bring prosperity to communities across the country. On 30 June, for the US, we implemented legislation creating two new quotas for imports of beef and ethanol, and the US removed tariffs on UK civilian aerospace goods and reduced tariffs on UK auto as agreed in the UK-US economic deal that we announced back in May. \p Ben Coleman: One of the businesses that stands to benefit from the EU trade agreement is a butcher and deli in my constituency that imports a lot of its products from Spain. At the moment, its shelves are unfortunately half-empty because its small Spanish supplier—effectively a man with a van—says he simply cannot cope with all the Brexit form filling. However, he has said that he expects things to get better from later this year thanks to the Government’s deal with the EU, which is great news. Will the Minister set out what steps are being taken to implement the removal of the Brexit red tape of sanitary and phytosanitary checks, including the likely timetable? \p Douglas Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I express my regret that that business, like so many across the country, finds itself buried in red tape as a consequence of the implementation of Brexit by the Conservative party. There are technical aspects of our agreement with the European Union that need to be worked through, but businesses across the country, such as the butchers and deli he described, will be willing us on in that endeavour. \p Bradley Thomas: When is a trade deal not a trade deal? It has been nine weeks since the Prime Minister announced a deal to protect steel from US tariffs, and 10 weeks since the Secretary of State said that the India deal was “signed, sealed and delivered.” Will the Secretary of State publish the details of these important deals without delay before recess, or will he apologise for misleading the House? \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We do not accuse other Members of misleading the House. A little word before that—“inadvertently”—would support that question. No doubt the hon. Member will wish to withdraw that. \p Bradley Thomas: indicated assent. \p Douglas Alexander: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am struggling to keep up with the Conservative party’s position as to whether deals have been done. As I recollect, 34,000 workers in Jaguar Land Rover know exactly the difference that a Labour Government are making, given the challenge they would have faced with more than 25% tariffs had it not been for the work of the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary. But that is only one sector of the economy. In relation to steel and aluminium, of which the hon. Member spoke, we are continuing to work with the United States to ensure that the agreement to remove 25% tariffs on UK steel and aluminium can be implemented as soon as possible, but we are unique in the level of tariffs set compared with every other country in the world. \p Allison Gardner: May I thank the Secretary of State for meeting regularly with me and my colleagues regarding the challenges facing the ceramics industry? I look forward to continuing to work with him to seek solutions for the challenges we face. What assessment has the Department made of the potential impact of its trade strategy on British businesses, and in particular the ceramics industry? \p Douglas Alexander: I saw that the general secretary of the GMB was focused on exactly those issues in relation to the ceramics industry this week, and I applaud the  concern he has shown for a key part of many local economies across the country. I assure my hon. Friend that we have given regard to every sector of the UK economy when negotiating the three trade deals secured by the Government—with the United States, as we just discussed, as well as with the European Union and, critically, with India. \p Chris Law: The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is a restrictive piece of legislation that centralises power to the UK Government and allows them to override the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday, the Labour Government confirmed they would not repeal or amend that Tory Act. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland previously said that the Act was “bad and damaging” and undermined devolution, and the Business and Trade Secretary voted against it when in opposition. Will the Business and Trade Secretary confirm whether he would vote against it again now? Does he agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland that this Tory Act is an attack on the integrity of the Scottish Parliament? \p Douglas Alexander: Well, well, well; the grievance machine is being fired up again by the Scottish National party, even at the last Business and Trade questions. The reality is that the changes made to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act are proportionate, targeted and focused critically on supporting the many Scottish businesses that contributed to the consultation. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should listen to Scottish business, which disproportionately benefits from the removal of barriers and the avoidance of new barriers going up in the critical single market that is the United Kingdom.