Trade Agreements

I announced in July that we were resuming free trade agreement negotiations with the Gulf Co-operation Council, India, Israel, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland and Türkiye. We have also begun talks with the United States on an economic prosperity deal, and we support the Cabinet Office with trade aspects of the EU reset.

Given the utter unreliability and, frankly, economic illiteracy of President Trump, and given that the EU is by far our largest trading partner, it is clear that the best interests of the UK are served by our having a deal that allows the closest possible co-ordination with the EU. Does the Minister agree with me that that should cover youth mobility, and improved energy and climate co-operation? Specifically, will he work with his colleagues to ensure that we ease burdens for British business by linking the UK and EU emissions trading schemes, and by aligning on chemicals regulation, to boost British productivity and prosperity?

I think that was a few questions, but we seem to have time for them today, so I welcome all of them. First of all, I recognise exactly what the hon. Lady says. When it comes to the importance of the EU as a principal trading partner for this country, the figures speak for themselves. I disagree with her about us having to choose between the US and the EU, or any other markets. I believe that the UK can be well positioned for all markets. There will be strong political views in this place about political leaders in a range of countries, but I would just say to her that when it comes to the United States, there are potentially thousands of jobs at stake. That is why we are pursuing a trade and economic prosperity deal with the US, and I think we cannot get away from that. On the questions relating to the EU, a successful negotiation takes two parties. I want to see greater co-operation. I would not talk about the specifics of any part of the negotiations, but I would not want the kind of barrier that she identified to be in place. I want the UK to have the best and most frictionless trade possible with the EU, in a way that is consistent with our aspirations and obligations with the rest of the world, but she has made her point very well, and I recognise it.

I declare an interest as the trade envoy to New Zealand. What conversations has the Secretary of State had recently with his New Zealand counterparts on the implementation of the UK-New Zealand free trade agreement?

First, let me thank my hon. Friend for all her work as our trade envoy to New Zealand. She knows, because she was present, that on his visit to the UK, New Zealand Prime Minister Luxon spent the day with the Prime Minister, and I was able to spend considerable time with him in the afternoon. We discussed the implementation of the UK-New Zealand FTA, as well as the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and the importance of working together to support free trade and to protect a rules-based trading system. We are working to ensure that businesses are using the FTA to support the Government’s growth agenda and the plan for change. Later this month, we will host the UK-New Zealand FTA joint committee, which will discuss continuing to grow UK and New Zealand trade.

I call the shadow Minister.

It is good to hear that the trade negotiations with India, which began when we were in government, are progressing well. There must surely now be an opportunity to reopen talks with Canada, so it can buy more wonderful cheese from the UK. With the tariff clock ticking, I am sure the Secretary of State recognises that the US deal is the most urgent; many UK jobs are at risk. However, we heard recently from the Chancellor, when she was in the States, that her bigger priority is discussions with the EU, where we already have zero tariffs and zero quotas. Does the Secretary of State share the Chancellor’s priorities, or does he think the US is more urgent?

I thank the hon. Lady for the earlier part of her comments. She is right that we wanted the previous Government to secure the India FTA, and we were willing to support them fully in doing that, but they were unable to get it across the line. With Canada, there are issues, particularly around agriculture, that are similar to those involving the US, so that may be more of a challenging negotiation. The entirety of this Government, however, have been clear that we are not seeking to pick between one market and another—both are absolutely fundamental. The Chancellor’s comments specifically relate to the simple truth that there is a much greater quantum of UK-EU trade than UK-US trade. Equally, though, in all these negotiations, we have to focus on not just what can be done quickly, but what can be done right and in the national interest. There is no point securing an agreement that does not deliver on our objectives, no matter whom that agreement is with. We will welcome any support from the Conservatives for the work we are trying to do. I do believe it is easier politically for this Government to do some trade agreements that are available to the UK; some may not have been politically available to the Conservative Government. We will continue to do that work, and we welcome all support for it, from across the House.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister whether Parliament will get a final vote on any trade deal negotiated with the United States, and the Prime Minister stated that it would go through the known process. That process does not include a vote for MPs on the ratification of any trade deal. Will the Secretary of State therefore make it explicitly clear, with a yes or no, whether MPs will get a final vote on the deal with the United States? The PM’s answer yesterday implied that we would not.

The answer, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is no; we are not, in this Government, seeking to change the ratification process for any treaty. He knows the process and how it works. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 sets out that process. It allows MPs to scrutinise any treaty agreed with a country and presented to the House. The implementation of any aspect of any treaty still has to come to Parliament, of course; it is not the case that any agreement on any kind of international treaty can supersede what we agree in this place. In that process, all Members of Parliament get the same rights and privileges, quite rightly, but no—we are not proposing changes to the process by which we agree treaties with other countries.