Mr Douglas Alexander
MP for Lothian East · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“I am glad to see that SNP Members are staying classy, as usual. On the matter of personnel choices, I am not sure that my first go-to source would be the First Minister, because of course he appointed Peter Murrell to be the chief executive of the Scottish National party. [ Interruption.”
“The SNP seems to respect every vote, apart from the constitutional referendum, in which 84% of the Scottish people exercised their democratic choice. The hon. Member she says that devolution is all the rage. With respect, some of us were early adopters.”
“I am not sure whether paying generous tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his question and the wisdom thereof will impair my prospects. Of course, devolution provides us with the tools, but one of the great tragedies of the last two decades in Scotland is that, regardless of whether it is the education system—where we used to be the e…”
“I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a tireless advocate for the people of Fife and, indeed, for its outstanding college. Our officials are in discussions with both the colleges sector and the Scottish Government, and hope that they will match the £10 million of funding that this Government have committed so that we can get on with bui…”
“There is a serious point to start the answer, which is that I have always believed that to be pro-Scottish, you do not need to be anti-English. We should be bigger and more generous than that. We are all immensely proud of Steve Clarke, Andy Robertson and the achievement of getting to the world cup.”
“Let me assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to bringing economic opportunity to every part of Scotland. Unlocking the economic potential of sites exactly like the ExxonMobil Bowling terminal is how we can achieve that for communities and deliver the high-skilled jobs that people want.”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Mr Douglas Alexander, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“Well, Mr Speaker, the quality of the SNP’s contributions does not seem to have improved since 2007, and neither has its arguments. In the face of failing schools and hospitals, and the inability to build ferries in the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency, what do we see? Once again, dreary documents about independence. The reality is that the SNP has let Scotland down, and Scotland deserves better. That is why we are up for the fight in May.”
“I am a great fan of Para Handy, the Vital Spark and the Waverley, but I would not want to offer them in the face of Vladimir Putin as an approach to Euro-Atlantic security. The reality is that we have student gesture politics from the Scottish National party. I met with the major defence companies in Greenock last Friday, and they were very clear that we are forgoing industrial opportunities now. There is a real cost to the incompetence and student naiveté of the Scottish National party.”
“Returning to the Dispatch Box as the Secretary of State for Scotland, I think it is striking that the SNP’s answers are no better than they were in 2017, 2014 or 2021. I simply ask: what is its policy on a Scottish currency? What is its policy on foreign reserves? What is its position on a Scottish pension? It is no better at answering those questions now than it was 20 years ago.”
“I sense that it might be myself. We would take seriously any SNP majority, but if the SNP is returned to office, I hope it will do better than it has done over the past 18 years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we on the Government Benches are not anticipating defeat; we are working for victory.”
“Not least because he has just turned up, let me say that I always agree with my boss. The reality is that we are clear and unequivocal that we do not want the break-up of the United Kingdom. As Scots, we made our choice in 2014, and that was for a better future within the United Kingdom.”
“I am conscious of the hon. Member’s long-standing interest in these matters. I can assure him that exports of F-35 components directly to Israel are already suspended where they are for use by Israel and not for re-export to other countries.”
“The F-35 programme is the largest international collaborative defence programme in the world. The hon. Gentleman refers to the recent High Court judgment, and as the High Court itself noted, the UK cannot make changes to the F-35 programme unilaterally—that requires agreement across all the partner nations and the availability of a workable programme-level change to isolate end users across thousands of different components.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Well, if I am simultaneously being criticised by the SNP and the Conservative party, I am pretty sure that we have got the balance right. The UK Internal Market Act seeks to strike the appropriate balance between giving devolved Governments flexibility on policy and avoiding unnecessary barriers for UK businesses. I believe we have got that balance exactly right.”
“The Government are committed to working with all levels of government to deliver for people across the whole United Kingdom. In the last few weeks, I attended the Interparliamentary Forum to speak with colleagues from across the four legislatures, and I have held productive discussions with devolved Government colleagues on our trade strategy.”
“I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking he seeks. We are committed to working in partnership with the Welsh Government to ensure that the framework is brought up to date and delivers value for money. My officials are supporting His Majesty’s Treasury on how the framework can be updated, and that work is ongoing.”
“I pay tribute to the work of the civil service, not just for the UK Government but across the United Kingdom. Civil servants do tireless work on behalf of the public each and every day and are a critical part of this Government’s determination to deliver significant change for the country and drive forward the missions we have defined. To the right hon. Member’s question, in the early years of devolution there was a lot more interchange between the home civil service here in London and the civil service in offices such as those in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff. I know that thought is being given to how we ensure that there is the right expertise in the right parts of the country, and there is an information exchange on how to get this right.”
“The UK’s recent trade agreements with India, the United States and the European Union confirm that, under this Government, Britain is back and open for business. These deals open markets and cut tariffs and will contribute to growth across the United Kingdom. For example, our deal with the EU—our closest and largest trading partner—contributes to our promise to reset our relations with our friends and neighbours in Europe. The sanitary and phytosanitary measures and the emissions trading system measures announced at the summit could increase UK GDP by nearly £9 billion by 2040.”
“I pay tribute to Cumbernauld’s advanced manufacturing capability. It is estimated that the UK-India free trade agreement will boost the whole UK economy by £4.8 billion and grow trade with India by over £25 billion annually. The Scotch Whisky Association forecasts £1 billion in extra exports and 1,200 new jobs. For Irn-Bru, which I understand is headquartered in my hon. Friend’s constituency, the agreement also removes India’s 33% tariffs on UK soft drinks. This India deal was delivered in the UK as a result of the hard work of our negotiators and the leadership of the Secretary of State, and it will benefit exporters and advanced manufacturers right across our country.”
“I pay tribute to the craftsmanship and global ambitions of Alex Begg in Ayr. My mother’s side of the family are all from Ayrshire, so it would be a personal pleasure to visit Ayrshire, as my hon. Friend suggests. I would suggest that we could visit Alex Begg during the summer recess, but then again, as Billy Connolly once observed: “There are two seasons in Scotland: June and winter.””
“I am grateful that at least one of the Opposition parties accepts that there is a deal. The hon. Member is right to recognise that the implementation phase is what we are now relentlessly focused on. I am sure the House will be aware of the statement issued overnight by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, confirming that the US will expedite the agreed quota for car exports to the United States, reducing tariffs from 27.5% to 10%. The Government continue to work on this important deal.”
“The hon. Lady raises a critical issue. The British Government have a long-standing opposition to the illegal occupation of lands in the Palestinian territories, principally in the west bank. We have been clear and consistent that, on the grounds of international law, the responsibility lies with the Israelis to resolve these issues. On the points she raised, it is a significant and contentious enough issue. I will be happy to write to her, but it has been clear for many years that we oppose the settlements and continue to do so.”
“I am very happy to consider the issues that the hon. Lady raises in relation to the website, but I can assure her that, whether it is the Minister for Industry or the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Government are in constant dialogue with the British steel industry. We will introduce a steel strategy, unlike her predecessors, and we have put serious money behind it. Thanks to the economic prosperity deal with the United States, the UK was the only country to be made exempt from the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium that other countries around the world now face.”
“I sympathise with a lot of what the hon. Lady has said. She is right to recognise that post Brexit we have broadly overperformed in services, relative to expectations, but significantly underperformed in terms of goods exports. That was in no small measure because a number of food and agriculture producers were buried in red tape and new paperwork. That is exactly why, as she suggests, the SPS deal is critical. Again, I welcome the fact that, for the second time today, we are being challenged to go further and faster on deals that we have delivered. I can assure her that, as I have said in relation to the United States, we take seriously our responsibilities on the implementation of SPS, but that places responsibilities on the British Government and, in this case, on the European Commission.”
“The Government’s policy remains that the only way to secure peace and stability is through an immediate ceasefire, the release of the hostages held captive by Hamas, the protection of civilians, and the lifting of all Israeli restrictions on aid being sent into Gaza. Last month, at the United Nations Security Council, the UK Government made the case for urgent humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, and expressed our outrage at both the killing of Palestinian Red Crescent workers and the strikes on the UN Office for Project Services compound in March. We also issued a statement with 27 international partners on the mechanisms needed to deliver those vital aid supplies, and together with the leaders of France and Canada, we made clear our strong opposition to the latest expansion of Israel’s military operations.”
“Over the many months of this conflict, the UK Government have made the case for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all the hostages detained, the protection of civilians, access for aid and aid workers to Gaza, and the need for a path to long-term peace and security in the region. The responsibility of Hamas is clear, but so too is the appalling humanitarian crisis that has since unfolded in Gaza as a result of Israel’s subsequent actions. The way in which Israel is conducting its operations is indefensible, disproportionate, and—in the view of the UK Government—counterproductive to any lasting peace settlement.”
“I am responding on this issue on behalf of the Government tonight, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) for securing this important and timely debate. Let me address the House this evening by first setting out the Government’s policy, and then setting out our approach to transparency, which formed a key part of my hon. Friend’s contribution. It is accepted on all sides of this House that, as the Government have made clear, what was witnessed on 7 October 2023 was not an act of liberation, but an act of barbarism by Hamas.”
“Let me make a little progress, and then I will be open to interventions. I turn next to the actions taken by this Government in support of those statements. We have supported the restoration of funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; we have suspended arms licences; we provided £129 million in humanitarian assistance to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the last financial year; and we have decided to suspend negotiations on the upgraded free trade agreement with this Israeli Government.”
“There are long-standing relationships of trade and economics with Israel—for instance, as I understand it, one in eight of the prescribed drugs available through the national health service is provided by an Israeli company. We have taken a clear position of not upgrading the free trade agreement but recognising, for example, that those supplies are important. The trade envoy roles are accountable to the Secretary of State in the Department for Business and Trade, and we were clear that Lord Austin would not directly deal with the Israeli Government when he was there and has no responsibility for the free trade agreement negotiations that otherwise would have been taking place in the coming months.”
“We also think it is right to continue to provide military grade body armour used by non-governmental organisations and journalists, and to provide parts of the supply chain that are ultimately re-exported out of Israel to support the defence of our NATO allies. The Government are fully committed to upholding our responsibilities under domestic and international law, and have acted in a manner consistent with our legal obligations, including under the arms trade treaty and the genocide convention. On the global F-35 programme, we are of course facing a critical moment of European security, with war on the continent at our neighbours’ doorsteps. Undermining the F-35 programme at this juncture would, in the Government’s view, disrupt international peace and security, NATO deterrence and European defence as a whole.”
“I reiterate that based on our current assessment of potential breaches of international humanitarian law, we are not licensing military equipment provided directly to the IDF that could be used for military operations in Gaza. It is right to acknowledge that our export licences granted in relation to Israel cover a wider remit than simply those items that may be used in Gaza. There are a relatively small number of licences for the IDF relating to equipment that we assess would not be used in the current conflict, including, for example, parts for air defence systems that defend Israel from acts such as the major aerial attack from Iran in April 2024.”
“Let me make a little more progress, then I will be happy to take further interventions. I will turn to the specific issue of export licences. On coming into office, the Foreign Secretary commissioned an immediate assessment into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law. On the basis of that assessment, on 2 September, we suspended arms export licences for items to the Israel Defence Forces that could be used in military operations in Gaza. As a result of that decision, licences were suspended for a range of military equipment, stopping the export of F-16 fighter aircraft components, of targeting systems and of licensable parts that make unmanned aerial vehicles. That measure is still in place.”
“The licence that allows the export of F-35 components was amended in September to specifically make it clear that direct shipments to Israel for use in Israel are not permitted.”
“Let me finish the explanation, then I will be happy to take interventions. Our exporters provide components for the F-35 aircraft to a global spares pool and the common production line for new aircraft, where they have no sight and no control over the specific ultimate end users for their exports. Put plainly, it is not possible to suspend licensing of F-35 components for use by one F-35 nation without ceasing supply to the entire global F-35 programme. It was therefore judged necessary by the Government to exclude F-35 components from the scope of the suspension. Let me be very clear, however, that the UK Government are not selling F-35 components directly to the Israeli authorities.”
“We are not directly sending parts to Israel for the F-35s. We are continuing to support the global component pool of the F-35 programme for the reason that I have set out. We as a Government judge that there is a material risk to the security of our NATO allies, and more broadly to European security, if the F-35 aircraft that are used by a number of our allies were no longer able to secure the supplies and the aircraft were therefore no longer able to fly.”
“We make approximately 15% of the components that contribute to the F-35 programme; it is an international programme of which we are but one partner. We continue to supply the programme because our judgment as a Government is that not doing so would undermine the continuing functioning of the programme, which is in the Government’s view, as I say, of critical importance to European and global security.”
“I have given way several times on that point, so I am keen to make some progress. The Government have made these judgments calmly and soberly, and will continue to do so with full awareness of our responsibility. Let me now turn to the question of transparency. As the UK Government, we publish quarterly official statistics and an annual report about export licences granted and refused. We provide a searchable database allowing users to produce bespoke reports, drawing on this data, and we are committed to openness on strategic export licensing, which provides the means for Parliament and the public to hold us to account.”
“In fact, of the 352 licences extant for Israel, as of 6 December 191 were non-military. They included commercial aircraft components, equipment for private manufacturing firms, and parts for submersible vessels for use in scientific research. That left 161 licences relating to military equipment. However, less than half those related to the Government of Israel or the IDF. Most related either to UK components that private Israeli companies would incorporate before re-exporting an item to a third country, or to military-grade equipment for civilians such as body armour for journalists and NGOs. I can advise the House that recent reporting on this topic does not provide distinctions between items for civilian and for military use, or between items remaining in Israel and those for re-export.”
“Recognising the exceptional nature of this issue and the importance of providing transparent and robust information to ensure that Parliament and the public can hold the Government to account, in December we laid in the Library of the House an exceptional release of export licensing data focused specifically on Israel, setting out plainly how many licences remained extant at that time, how many had been granted since June 2024, and how many had been refused. In summarising that release, let me assure Members that remaining licences relate to non-military items, military items for civilian use, or items not for use in military operations in Gaza. These licences also extend to components in items for re-export to other countries—that is, those that then leave Israel. Ongoing licensing applications are also decided on that basis.”
“I am keen to make a little more progress before I take further interventions. Because these are exceptional circumstances, the Government have heard requests from Members on both sides of the House for us to release further details, including information on licence applications in progress, and as full information as we can disclose on the types of equipment that are covered by each extant licence.”
“That includes more than £120 million, or about 85% of the total licence value, for components to support exports of military items from Israeli companies to a single programme for a NATO ally. These remaining licences have no utility in military operations in Gaza. The suspension of such licences was not required by our export licence criteria, and would have done nothing but harm UK companies and UK businesses engaged in authorised and legal trade. Since September, we have refused all licence applications for military goods that might be used by Israel in the current conflict in line with the suspension decision. More applications were refused in 2024 than in the preceding four years combined. Question put and agreed to.”
“I am acutely conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker. The exclusion from the suspension decision for F-35 components should not, in principle, apply to licences for F-35 components that could be identified as going to Israel for use by Israel. Exports of F-35 components directly to Israel are therefore suspended unless they are for re-export. Let me return to the specific point that I know has been the subject of much scrutiny in relation to recent reporting outside the House. The majority of military licences approved last year are for components of military items for re-export to third countries, including the UK’s NATO allies, of about £142 million-worth of military goods licensed for Israel and in 2024. The vast majority of that overall value was supporting the production of items for use outside Israel.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It had been the intention of the Government to make a statement to the House this afternoon immediately following the scheduled press conference by the US President and the words of our own Prime Minister. Both of those sets of remarks were delayed, with the result that, at this relatively late hour, the Government would now suggest respectfully to you that it would be more courteous to the House to be able to provide all Members with the opportunity for a full statement on Monday. If that does not—”
“In the coming years, the Government of the United Kingdom will continue to work to secure international agreements that uphold our national interests. For all those reasons, I commend the statement to the House.”
“As a Government, we are grateful to businesses across the United Kingdom for their extensive and continued engagement in recent weeks, and look forward to continuing that engagement through the remaining negotiations. I would also like to place on record the Government’s gratitude for the work of officials here in London and in Washington for their efforts in securing the first stage of this agreement today. It will have escaped nobody’s attention in this House that this agreement with the United States has been reached on the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. That victory was secured not simply by the heroism and courage of the British armed forces, but by strong transatlantic alliances that have served us well over the eight subsequent decades.”
“Members will have the chance to scrutinise the deal we agree with the United States Government, as well as legislation implementing the deal. To reiterate what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade have told the House, we are not seeking to change existing statutory scrutiny processes. It is vital that Parliament has the opportunity to make its voice heard on this important set of issues. I am pleased to confirm that the Secretary of State yesterday briefed the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on progress in the negotiations. We will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments throughout the negotiations that will follow today’s announcement.”
“We have also committed to further negotiations on tariff reductions to enhance the UK-US trading relationship. Without this Government’s swift action, the economic impact of US tariffs would, candidly, have been extremely severe. Following agreement on the outline of the deal today, there will now be a process of formal negotiations with the US on a binding legal framework. The negotiations aim to deliver an ambitious set of outcomes in areas such as digital trade, tackling non-tariff barriers, agreeing mutual recognition agreements for industrial goods and an agreement on domestic services regulation, collaborating on economic security, and upholding standards in areas such as intellectual property and labour practices. I can, of course, confirm to the House that hon.”
“The deal we have signed today will protect British farmers and uphold our high animal welfare and environmental standards. Any agricultural imports coming into the United Kingdom will have to meet our high SPS—sanitary and phytosanitary—standards. On economic security, the deal will ensure co-operation on non-market policies from third countries, investment security and export controls. With the United States Government, we will continue to advance the UK’s national interest in key sectors where discussions continue, such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, copper, lumber and film production. We will seek the best possible deal and outcome for these vital parts of our economy, and those working on our critical infrastructure.”
“A deal like this was desperately needed to support jobs and economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic. Furthermore, the deal secures the removal of the new tariffs the US imposed on steel and aluminium in March, through duty-free quotas. It reinforces our commitment to the steel industry, following our swift action last month to protect British Steel and its 2,500 employees. Turning next to agriculture, for the first time ever, the deal will open up exclusive access for UK beef farmers to the US market. Currently only a few other countries, such as Australia, enjoy such access. This is a major opportunity for British farmers to increase their exports to the world’s largest consumer market, helping them to grow their businesses. Let me be clear that the import of hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken will remain illegal.”
“As the Prime Minister has commented within the last hour, “This is jobs saved…not job done.” To that end, I can inform the House that the deal we have secured secures reductions to the 25% tariffs imposed by the United States on the UK car industry. UK exports to the US will face a lower tariff of 10% for a quota of 100,000 vehicles. That is positive news for iconic British luxury brands such as Aston Martin, Bentley and McLaren, but it is also good news for our country’s largest vehicle manufacturer, Jaguar Land Rover, which employs 34,000 employees directly in the UK, with 135,000 further jobs in its wider supply chain. As the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders pointed out, the US is Britain’s second largest car export market.”
“In March, the United States Government announced tariffs on steel, aluminium and autos. This was followed by an announcement of a global tariff, with the UK on the lowest rate of 10%. Throughout this period, the UK Government have been engaged in an intensive and continued dialogue with the Government of the United States to advance the UK’s national interest in this challenging and changing global trading environment. The deal we have agreed is the first step in delivering on the commitment made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister and President Trump in February to reach an economic deal in our respective national interests. First and foremost, the deal will protect UK jobs, while laying the groundwork for increased transatlantic trade and investment.”