Business and the Economy
Dave Doogan Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith
I am afraid that to make those points is to misconstrue wilfully what is actually in the Bill. We have a very settled and balanced position of employment rights that dates back to before previous Labour Governments as well as the Government in office before the election. It strikes what will always be a difficult balance between offering employees the chance to enter the workforce and the ability of businesses, and of the public sector and others, to hire and to operate in a way that is profitable. It does nobody any favours to think that we can, merely by passing words of statute, change the outcomes in a way that advantages the most vulnerable, who are the youngest employees. The failure to learn from that point will once again lead to exactly the same outcome, which is why every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than where it started. In his response, the Minister may wish to confirm that this time will be different and perhaps lay out exactly why it will be different, but he has a job of work to convince us and, more importantly, every employer in the land that that is the case.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The shadow Minister takes a casual swipe at the business acumen of Ministers, and I wonder whether I can encourage him to develop that point. When I speak to businesses in Angus and Perthshire Glens about the changes that have been instituted since July last year, they are incredulous that anybody with even a passing knowledge of business, enterprise or entrepreneurialism of any nature would put such roadblocks in the way of business and wealth creation. Would he like to expand on that?
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that very perceptive observation. I hate to say this, but I was not making a casual point; it was a considered point. When we think about how this House continues to legislate and tax in a way that reduces economic growth, that does not celebrate a culture of entrepreneurialism and founders, and that is leading to higher employment, with 100,000 fewer people on payroll than there were a year ago, we should all look deep into our souls. What is the endemic failure in Parliament, and of this Government in particular, that is leading so quickly to precisely those outcomes?
It is sad to say that sometimes there is a lack of voice for business. Although one does not want every single sector to be represented in this place, the compensatory mechanism for that involves consultation and diligent impact assessments. In introducing legislation, this Government have been serially criticised for the way that they have casually discarded such measures, and the Treasury maths simply do not add up.
Gareth Thomas
Well, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming once again that he is against the India trade deal, against the deal with the US and against the deal with the European Union.
I turn now to business investment. The Opposition’s motion claims that
“investors and entrepreneurs are being driven overseas”.
I hate to break it to Opposition Members, but the facts tell a rather different story: business investment actually rose by 5.9% in the first quarter of this year, the fastest quarterly growth in two years. In other words, business investment is higher than when the Conservative party left office.
Dave Doogan
Is the Minister a little worried that the unexpected growth in the first quarter of this year was businesses making capital investment to get in ahead of tariffs?
Gareth Thomas
One way that the hon. Gentleman could help businesses in Scotland would be to call for the Scottish Government to do what we are doing in this country and extend business rates relief to hospitality and leisure.
Investors from across the globe are choosing to put their money in the UK. Our international investment summit last year saw £63 billion committed to the UK—double the amount secured by the previous Government, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Secretary of State for Business and Trade—which is set to generate 38,000 new jobs. Crucially, the leaders of companies that committed to invest in our country at our international investment summit have hailed our pro-business approach as a driving factor behind their decision.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
We know that a nation in which every single one of us can earn a decent life is a stronger nation. That is exactly the kind of country that the Government are creating. In this country today, too many people cannot earn a decent life. Our nation is weaker as a result. The task before us is to create a stronger nation, not the weaker and more divided one that some Members would like to see and speak about time and again.
I take the Opposition’s motion in good faith, but each of its points, which I will come to in due course, is mistaken. We live in dangerous times. A third of us cannot earn a decent living, because the Conservatives left us with some of the highest energy, housing and childcare costs in the world. They left us a no-growth economy: wages did not grow for 14 years—the longest squeeze since Napoleon. Their hero Margaret Thatcher destroyed manufacturing in this country—the fastest deindustrialisation in western Europe. Non-graduates cannot get good jobs and are now turning away from democracy itself.
Dr Sandher
I give way first to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan).
Dave Doogan
I am on dangerous territory here—it ill behoves me to defend the party to my extreme right—but does the hon. Gentleman not remember the note that was left by the Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2010 about all the money being gone?
Dr Sandher
I was a very young man then as it happens; it was rather a long time ago. I believe that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) wanted to intervene too. [Interruption.] Or perhaps not any more—he is busy tweeting away. That is okay.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be speaking up for Scottish constituents on such an important issue. I see that one of my Conservative colleagues, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), will be speaking up for his Scottish constituents. Nobody on the Government Benches has turned up to speak for their Scottish constituents on this issue.
I want to start with the good bits. Now that we have got that done, we will get into the meat of this. As has been said, we see an incredibly wrong-headed brake on investment and enterprise in the jobs tax—the increase to employers’ national insurance. I do not think that measure is a sleight of hand; it goes beyond that. To say that employers’ national insurance is not a tax on working people stretches disingenuousness to its absolute limits. The measure is also counterproductive. The £22 billion or £23 billion—whatever the Government’s target amount was to take in from employers—has already been attrited to well below £10 billion. If they actually did the right thing by hospices, it would go down even further. The measure is a massive burden for a modest gain for the Treasury, and that does not take into account the consequential costs of imposing such a burden on businesses and employers. The impact has already been felt in care homes in Scotland, with five closing ahead of this disaster for enterprise.
The Office for National Statistics has predicted that 25,000 jobs will be lost across the United Kingdom as a result. When the policy was introduced, I ordered a pint at one of my local pubs and jokingly asked the barman if the penny was already off the pint. He said, “Yes it is, and I have stuck on another 20 for your national insurance increase.” Although that is anecdotal, it speaks to the gulf in understanding between UK Treasury Ministers and the real economy that makes things tick. The Scottish Government estimate that, on average, the policy will cost £850 per job per year in Scotland. Except for the Scottish living wage and the slight difference in the income tax regime in Scotland, I see no reason why that figure would not be broadly the same across the whole of the United Kingdom economy. It is utterly unrealistic.
The genesis of the measure is the UK Government’s insistence that they had no idea that there was a £22 billion black hole in public finances—there probably was, although they probably made about a third of that with what they decided to do when they came into government. There is a brazen willingness by the Labour party to reinvent reality—it is bare-faced. Despite being engaged on that repeatedly in debate during the election campaign, the say that they did not know there was a multibillion pound black hole in the UK public finances. What were they debating if they did not think it was real? It is totally disingenuous.
Inflation jumped again in April to 3.5%, up from 2.6% in March. That was not caused by an economy firing on all cylinders or by a rejuvenated consumer sector, high on the output from a new Government, full of ideas and creativity. No, it is driven by electricity and gas prices and by water bills that consumers can do little or nothing about, but which they are still having to fight to pay on top of higher interest rates, as the Bank of England tries to get on top of inflation in a deeply dysfunctional economy.
The Government should seek to address the actual drivers of inflation and take on those energy prices. Let us not forget that not that long ago, at the election, we were promised a £300 reduction in energy bills. It was not “maybe”, “around” or anything of that nature; the message was that if people voted Labour, they would get a £300 reduction in their energy bills. In less than a year, however, energy bills have gone up by £281, so they are now almost £600 higher, emptying consumers’ bank accounts and driving inflation.
What is Labour’s response? Labour Members say, “That is because of our reliance on gas.” Well, we were reliant on gas before the election as well, so there are two possible reasons for that to have happened: Labour was playing fast and loose with the truth; or it did not understand how energy in GB works. I know which one I think it is, but either way it does not reflect well on this Labour party. In under a year, business confidence is falling, job losses and unemployment are rising, borrowing costs are soaring, prices are rising, growth is sluggish and there is rampant inflation. When speaking about growth at the beginning of the year, the Chancellor said that she was pleased but that she had got more to do. Well, God help business if she has got more to do. We have seen quite enough damage in the first nine months of this Labour Government.
I turn to agricultural property relief. In the garden of Scotland that is Angus and Perthshire Glens—I will take no dispute on that fact—we have some of the most productive agricultural land on these islands. As hon. Members would anticipate, with such productive agricultural land, we have extremely high-performing food producers who invest heavily in the latest technology and equipment, and ensure that there is a tremendous return on investment, so that they get the best yields possible so that they can drive down prices and deliver good-value food for tables across these islands and beyond.
What will happen now with agricultural property relief? What signal is being sent out to farms and farm businesses? Is it for those businesses to invest in their farms, so that they have to give it all away when somebody dies? Older farm owners in Angus and Perthshire Glens are now petrified of dying, and it will be the same everywhere else across the United Kingdom: what an ignominious, invidious position for any Government to put the people who produce our food into—it is incorrigible. I say to the Minister, with as much sincerity as I can muster, that quietly with his colleagues in the Treasury, at the spending review or some other opportunity—call it a review or whatever he likes—he should call off the dogs from our farming businesses up and down these islands. They deserve better.
Business property relief is not unrelated, and we have heard some of the testimony from other right hon. and hon. Members on the necrotic effect that has on investor confidence. There is good reason why large-scale family businesses are really good for economies, especially local economies. They employ local people, they headquarter locally, and they try, as much as possible, to establish and stand up their supply chains locally. They sell nationally and internationally. It is a virtuous conveyor of capital from outwith to within. It is excellent for the economy. It is far better than the same economic output from a public limited company, although of course PLCs have their role. But what large-scale businesses in Scotland and elsewhere are speaking to me about is that disincentive to invest.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Family Business UK says that 55% of businesses have paused or even cancelled planned investments due to the Government’s plans to cap business property relief. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should delay the planned BPR changes and conduct a thorough consultation and an impact assessment?
Dave Doogan
I cannot help but agree with the hon. Lady. At the very least, that is what the Government should do, and other hon. Members have suggested that too. To be fair, it cannot be easy to form a new Government—it certainly does not look easy. Any new Government must come in, make decisions and quietly think, “Och, I wish we had not done that.” I am certain that APR was put under the nose of a Minister by a civil servant, in the full expectation that the Minister would have the wit to say, “We are not going there—we are absolutely not doing that.” And blooming heck, they have gone and done it. I am sure that when the civil servants walked away they were saying, “Oh God, we never expected that.” And so it is with business property relief, because of the consequences. The cost-benefit relationship between what they are doing to enterprise and business and what they will accrue to the Treasury is out of all kilter. The damage is way in excess of the potential accrual, and that is before behavioural changes are brought into effect.
I recently spoke to a large-scale potato farmer near Kirriemuir, in my constituency, who has massive cold storage, a vital element of potato production, so that farmers can keep the potatoes in tip-top condition and ensure that the supermarkets are supplied as and when, just in time. I sometimes think that the Government think that farmers are trotting around in their tractors, chewing on a bit of straw, but these are really switched-on businesses that are doing the utmost to keep food prices down. We have some of the lowest food prices in Europe, and that does not happen by not investing seriously massive sums in capital and equipment. At a stroke, the Government have catastrophically disincentivised the very behaviour that helps keep food prices down and is anti-inflationary. Look what is going to happen with that.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief will raise relatively small amounts for the Treasury, but they will have a devastating effect on those businesses, and the reason they are being brought in is that Government Ministers have no idea how small businesses and farmers operate?
Dave Doogan
I do agree; I would rather not agree, but I do agree. That is why I implore the Treasury Minister, who is in his place, to have whatever private conversations Ministers have in their Departments about things that they may have got wrong. They cannot U-turn or row back on everything, but honestly, agricultural property relief and business property relief is an absolute landmine for businesses to be pulled across by this Government. He does not even have to address it in his summing up; he can just go back and quietly look at it again and have a review—kick it into the long grass at least.
I want to speak briefly on quantitative tightening by the Bank of England; I probably will not have too many supporters in the Chamber on this issue, but no change there. I have raised this matter a couple of times with the Chancellor and she talks about all manner of things in response, none of which are quantitative tightening. The over-zealous nature of the Bank of England’s disposing of Government bonds is hugely costly to the Exchequer. There is no need for the rate of quantitative tightening that the central bank of the UK is undertaking. It is not replicated by other central banks. Even if the Bank was to go to a passive model of quantitative tightening that would have substantial, multibillion-pound savings for the Exchequer, at a time when the Chancellor returning from China was getting excited about £600 million for the whole UK economy over five years; £600 million is not even the annual budget of my local health board in Angus and Perthshire Glens. If those types of numbers are important to the Chancellor, the total quantitative tightening cost of £45 billion since 2022 should really be nearer the top of her red box for her attention.
Jerome Mayhew
I was going to point out to the hon. Member the size of the sum involved but he went on to mention it himself. This is translating a theoretical loss into a real one guaranteed by the Treasury with taxpayers’ money, so I think the hon. Member is definitely on to something.
Dave Doogan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reassurance, particularly as I actively did not anticipate any reassurance.
Total costs for quantitative tightening are predicted to be in the region of £130 billion, all borne by the taxpayer of the United Kingdom. The one relevant thing the Chancellor did say to me when I raised this with her during Treasury questions was that she highly values the operational independence of the Bank of England, and so do I, but that does not mean she cannot chat to them about what is patently unnecessary and extremely expensive to the public purse.
Finally, we see a very unsavoury lurch to the right from a Labour Government on immigration. I will not rake over those coals but it is clear that the Prime Minister regrets some of his more florid language on immigration, and the Chancellor has provided no costings and no analysis of this dangerous policy that has been dreamt up on the back of a fag packet. Scotland has a declining birth rate, as do many other parts of the United Kingdom. We actively need immigration. We need it for our care sector, for our hospitality sector, for our agricultural sector and for our energy sector. It is not just low skilled seasonal work that we require, but all manner of people to come and work in our broad and diverse economy. In Scotland we have no idea why we have been dragged down this route—actually we know fine well why we have been dragged down it—but it is hugely damaging, again, for a Government whose stated ambition is growth, and choking off the labour component from the economy is really not consensual.
This relates to the whole debacle on the EU. I heard the Chancellor say the other day that there is no going back on Brexit and there will be no regulatory alignment and no free movement of people and they will honour the vote of the people—not the vote of the Scottish people, let me add—and Brexit is water under the bridge. Well, it is not water under the bridge, or rather in so far as it is water under the bridge it is a pool of stagnant, rancid water that refuses to shift its acrid whiff from across society in Scotland and elsewhere.
I heard a Lib Dem getting all doe-eyed earlier about seed potatoes; and he was right. Seed potatoes are very important in my economy, but I remember when a Lib Dem would give a full-throated endorsement to membership of the European Union, rather than doffing their cap to a Labour Government for frittering around the edges. This is frittering around the edges, and it has come at a tremendous cost to the Scottish fishing industry. Some 70% of the revenue from aquaculture and fishing in the United Kingdom comes from Scotland, and the Scottish aquaculture and fishing industry is 50 times greater a part of the Scottish economy than it is of the UK economy, yet no discussion was had with the Scottish Government or sector ahead of that, just as no discussion was had in 1970 when the Scottish fishing industry was thrown under a bus at that stage as well.
The Minister might say, “Well, you can’t have it both ways, you SNP type: you can’t say you want to be back in the EU and then lament the loss of your fishing rights to EU boats”—the Minister can score that point out now. Although of course we want to be back in the European Union with all our other European nations, and we would have to take some of that pain on fishing, we would get the gain to go with it. What Labour have foisted on Scotland is all the pain of conceding our fishing grounds to European boats and none of the gain of being in the European Union, and nothing they have agreed this week is remotely like being back in the European Union.
There is an ill wind blowing through the political landscape on these islands, and the actions of this Labour Government are simply making matters worse.
John Cooper
The hon. Lady is a doughty campaigner on the Business and Trade Committee. Unquestionably, mistakes were made. We know that and we have been through it before, but this Government have been in charge for 10 months now, and we see inflation rising and jobs slipping away.
As I said, we are through the looking glass: trade deals are bad, except when they are good. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last week criticised the Conservatives’ Australia and New Zealand deals for hitting farmers, while saying that his Government’s US deal protects farmers. The US deal put the welly boot into beef farmers, who face cheap imports here and US quotas over there that they just cannot fulfil.
Dave Doogan
I wonder what the hon. Member thinks about a couple of points. When is a trade deal not a trade deal? It seems that what has been agreed with the United States is a tariff deal and what has been agreed with the European Union is a modification to our pre-existing arrangement. What does he think the US trade deal will mean for beef farmers in his part of Scotland?
John Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right. These are not free trade agreements in the normal sense of the words: they are frittering around the edges, as he said himself. The difficulty for beef farmers in Dumfries and Galloway is that prices are rising, which is partly down to a drop in stock because of costs and things like that, so they are unable to fulfil this idea of sending beef to America. That is unlikely—it is more likely that we will see cheap American beef coming here.
Again, we go back through the looking glass. Up is down when the Employment Rights Bill makes strikes more likely, yet is touted as a boost to productivity. It is incredible. The minimum wage is up, which is no bad thing, but let us not pretend that that is Government money: hard-pressed businesses have to find that extra cash, again. In short, Labour is not working and, terrifyingly, neither are increasing numbers of our constituents.
Torsten Bell
What the Office for Budget Responsibility has said is that disposable incomes will grow during this Parliament at twice the rate that they grew during the last Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has just given me another excuse to repeat my favourite fact, which is this: forget what anybody is forecasting, because in the real world, wages have risen more in the first 10 months of this Government than in an entire 10 years under the Conservatives.
We are going to stick to our promise not to raise working people’s rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT, and we are maintaining an internationally competitive tax system with the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7. Nobody on this side of the House is pretending that these were easy decisions, but they were the right ones and the responsible ones, yet each and every decision has been opposed by the Opposition parties. It is no surprise to hear SNP Members joining with the Conservatives, as they do on almost everything these days.
Dave Doogan
The Minister is making great play of the way in which his new Government have increased wages across the United Kingdom since the election, but will he concede that 91% of earners and workers in Scotland were already earning more than the living wage level that his Government have recently set?
Torsten Bell
I will, and that is why I am celebrating the fact that average wage rises are happening. If the hon. Member does not want to be in favour of wage rises in Scotland, that says everything about today’s SNP.
We are all used to the Liberal Democrats’ fantasy economics, but the Conservatives used to believe in sound public finances. They used to understand that it is only on that basis that the Bank of England can sustainably cut interest rates, as it has done on four occasions since the general election. The shadow Secretary of State, in his very long speech, claimed that these choices were not pro-business choices. I tell him that these are pro-business choices because it is pro-business to deliver functioning public services. Was it pro-business when the Conservatives left shops up and down the country paying a retail tax, forced to employ their own security guards because the Tories took the police off the beat? Was it pro-business when employers everywhere faced a health tax under the Conservatives because the NHS was not functioning and their staff were off sick? As I said earlier, growth is key. Of course, the shadow Secretary of State is such a champion of the British economy that he predicted there would not be any. Back in December, he claimed with glee that Britain would start 2025 in recession—
Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill
Dave Doogan ExcerptsSaturday 12th April 2025
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 View all Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 94-I Marshalled list for Committee - (12 Apr 2025)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House not just for participating in this debate, but for returning to this place in these exceptional circumstances. There seems to be some debate about it, but I think this is the sixth time since the second world war that we have met on a Saturday, and only the second time that the House has been recalled on a Saturday—the other being during the Falklands war.
Before I respond to Members’ comments, I echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening remarks: this Government will never hesitate to protect our steel industry and the thousands of steel workers in this country who built it. We always said, from the outset of our negotiations with Jingye, that we would keep every option on the table and would act in the national interest to protect jobs. UK-forged steel built our railways, bridges and buildings. It is integral to our economy’s future, just as much as it has been to our rich industrial past. That is why we need to pass this legislation today.
I will try to address as many of the points raised as I can. Members made the argument for British Steel. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) pointed out that 95% of Network Rail steel is from British Steel. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) pointed out that TfL would not get anywhere were it not for steel. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), who has such expertise, pointed out that steel is the future and everything we have is made from or with steel.
I can reassure the House that our plan for steel—the £2.5 billion that we committed to in the manifesto—will work to break down the trade barriers that we have on steel, consider the all new technologies that we can introduce, and look across the whole of the UK to ensure that we protect steel everywhere.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Minister speaks about the whole of the United Kingdom. I am very pleased that the Government are acting, literally at pace for once, by stepping in to protect the workers in Scunthorpe, in precisely the opposite way to when they turned a blind eye to the plight of workers at Grangemouth, which is also critical national infrastructure labouring under energy prices. Why is there one rule for industrial production in England and another for industrial production in Scotland?
Sarah Jones
In the first 10 weeks after coming to power, this Government negotiated a better deal on Port Talbot and delivered a £200 million commitment to secure the future of Grangemouth. We acted last week on the zero emission vehicle mandate to secure our automotive industry. We are acting today to save the workers of Scunthorpe. The Government believe in direct action—in an active state securing the future of our industry across the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) raised trade protection issues. I want to reassure her that we will ensure that the right trade protections are in place for our steel industry. Concerns were raised about future decisions about moving towards nationalisation and whether we would come back to this place. I can reassure the House that we will come back to this place if are any further matters relating to ownership or otherwise. We will keep the House updated.
Concerns were raised about the “reasonable excuse” part of the Bill, and examples were requested. The “reasonable excuse” clause could include physical inability, illness or accident, and it is reasonable and measured in this case.
Many hon. Members talked about China. We are focusing on this company today; we are not focusing on the nation of China. The Bill is about what has happened with British Steel and what this Government are going to about British Steel. I would not want this House to believe that the policy of this Government is anything other than a belief in free and fair trade, and that includes with China.
Turning to the sunset clause amendments that have been tabled and the suggestions during the debate that those measures should be included in the Bill, I reiterate what the Secretary of State explained about the risk of a hard backstop reducing our leverage, which was why we did not include a sunset clause. However, we have heard the House’s concerns. I confirm that we will repeal the legislation as quickly as we can and that we will involve the Select Committee. I also make this pledge to the House: we will update the House regularly and the Secretary of State has committed to do so every four working weeks. I hope that that will give the House reassurance.
Scunthorpe Steelworks
Dave Doogan Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend’s constituents who work for British Steel will, of course, be deeply worried. When I was last there in February, I talked to workers, the unions and management. This is a proud industry of good jobs with good salaries compared with the local averages. I am well aware of how anxious those workers will be feeling; I hope they can take some comfort, at least, from the fact that we are doing absolutely everything we can to secure a deal with British Steel.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is difficult to listen to the Minister at the Dispatch Box saying that everything is okay with the United States because of the positive relationship between the Prime Minister and the President, when it can be characterised as the President saying, “Jump,” and the Prime Minister asking, “How high?” The US has visited precisely the same tariffs on the UK steel industry as on the Chinese. If that is a special relationship, I would hate to see what an ordinary relationship looks like.
When will the Government get a grip on the production of primary steel? It is a non-negotiable for a G7 nation to produce primary steel. It is intrinsic to our defence and security. The Government seem to be trying to negotiate a situation that is the worst of all worlds, whereby the taxpayer has to stump up the money but the private sector in China gets to dictate the terms.
Sarah Jones
I do not recognise that framing at all. We are in a better position than many other countries in terms of the strength of our relationship with the US and the building up of relationships that has happened over recent months. As I said, the Secretary of State is in regular talks with his counterparts and we are having constructive talks with our counterparts. We cannot go into the details of those negotiations, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have a cool head, we know what we want and we will do what is best for our industries in the long run.
On the matter of primary steel and steelmaking in the UK, we need our defence and our security to have strong, vibrant steelmaking production in the UK. There are different ways to do that, including with different technologies, which are moving all the time. That is why the steel strategy needs to anticipate where technology is going and make sure we get that right.
Oral Answers to Questions
Dave Doogan Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Hands
I gave evidence in front of the EFRA Committee just last week on this very issue with our Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer). We put in a huge amount of resources. We have a number of commissioners and trade support people around European Union countries and around the world promoting agrifood exports. I add that we also have a record level of services and exports to the EU, some of which will be in the agriculture sector. We have, contrary to the constant doom and gloom that the hon. Lady brings to this question time every five weeks, a very good story to tell about the successes of the United Kingdom when it comes to trade.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Scottish salmon is just one of the Scottish businesses that serve to prop up the failing UK economy, yet trade organisation Salmon Scotland revealed recently that the salmon industry in Scotland is losing £100 million a year in trade with the EU. Since 2019, that has amounted to a 17% drop in trade. What message does the Secretary of State have for this business in Scotland, where all businesses and two thirds of the electorate rejected this hard Tory Brexit?
Greg Hands
We hear this from the Scottish National party all the time, opposing everything in terms of UK trade agreements. It is actually Scottish goods that benefit from so many of these trade agreements that we have negotiated, such as whisky when it comes to the Australian and New Zealand deals and the coming deal we hope to do with India. All these deals benefit Scottish goods in particular, yet the SNP has opposed or abstained on every single trade deal that has ever been done by either this country or by the European Union. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman knows it is true. The SNP has abstained on Japan and on Singapore; it is against Canada, against South Africa, against Korea, against Australia and against New Zealand; and its Members even failed to show up on the Ukraine agreement. It is a woeful record when it comes to supporting Scotland from the SNP.
Oral Answers to Questions
Dave Doogan Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Huddleston
Through a variety of mechanisms and across multiple Departments, the Government give advice to companies investing overseas. In terms of dynamics the other way around, the Investment Security Unit carefully analyses investment in the UK, particularly relating to acquisitions in 17 sensitive areas. We are very careful at analysing and we will continue to keep a close eye on those two-way relationships.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The UK’s total exports have now recovered to pre-pandemic levels, measured against 2018. In 2022, UK exports were £815 billion, up by 21% in current prices compared with 2018, and up by 0.5% once adjusted for inflation. The latest data shows Scotland is the third highest exporting nation or region in both goods and services. In 2022 Scottish exports of goods totalled £35.7 billion, up by 23.5% in current prices from the previous year.
Dave Doogan
I know just what a favourable position Scotland is in, in terms of its trade exports. We do very well, even though we are held back by the constraints of this Union. The Office for National Statistics figures show that UK exports are lagging behind other G7 countries. Before the Minister tells us that this is because of the war in Ukraine and covid, let me point out that all our G7 partners have faced those headwinds as well, but only the United Kingdom, sadly including Scotland, faces the English Brexit chaos that is damaging our trade. What discussions has she had to apologise to the Scottish Government and to Scottish businesses for the drag she places on Scottish trade?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman started so positively. If he is against Brexit, then he is against every trade deal, and he is against the most integrated single market in the world, which is Scotland and England. All he wants to do is to split, split, split. I have already told him the good news that the total amount of exports in pounds is up. There is also fantastic news about whisky—surely that can raise a smile from the hon. Gentleman—and about services: in 2022, UK services were up by 24% in current prices, and by 4% when the figure was adjusted for inflation. I know it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to accept good news from the Government Benches, but it is good for his constituents, so he should welcome it.