Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

South Korea: FTA Negotiations

Thursday 2 May 2024 · 3 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 2 Partly answered 0 Not answered 0

Key points

  • UK Department made progress on detailed round 2 discussions for an upgraded FTA with South Korea from 18 to 22 March.
  • Round 3 text-based negotiations for the FTA are scheduled to take place in Seoul from 24 June.
  • The UK values the Indo-Pacific region as vital for global growth and trading ties, with South Korea playing a key role.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 John Whittingdale Con Maldon
Business & Trade
Context

The MP asks about the progress made on negotiations for a free trade agreement with South Korea, highlighting the importance of the agreement for global growth and opportunities in the Indo-Pacific region.

Question

What recent progress her Department has made on negotiating a free trade agreement with South Korea? I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer ahead of my visit to Korea next week. Does he agree that the Indo-Pacific region offers huge opportunities for global growth, particularly as it will be home to half the world's middle-class consumers over the coming decades, and therefore that upgrading this agreement is likely to bring huge benefits to the UK?

Answer from Greg Hands

The detailed round 2 discussions on an upgraded FTA took place from 18 to 22 March, providing an opportunity to conclude the exploratory phase of negotiations. We now look forward to text-based negotiations in round 3, due to take place in Seoul from 24 June. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Indo-Pacific region offers huge opportunities for global growth and the Republic of Korea will play a vital role in this strategy.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 John Whittingdale Con Maldon
Foreign Affairs Business & Trade
Context

The MP questions the importance of upgrading a free trade agreement with South Korea, citing economic opportunities in the Indo-Pacific region and its potential benefits to the UK.

Question

Does he agree that the Indo-Pacific region offers huge opportunities for global growth, particularly as it will be home to half the world's middle-class consumers over the coming decades, and therefore that upgrading this agreement is likely to bring huge benefits to the UK?

Answer from Greg Hands

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Indo-Pacific is a vital part of the world for the UK and forms the centrepiece of our strategy going forward diplomatically and on trading ties. The Republic of Korea will play a vital role in this, as outlined by the recently signed Downing Street accord with Korea.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Kevin Brennan Lab
Culture, Media & Sport Business & Trade
Context

The MP questions the transparency surrounding the use of trade envoys, specifically whether any have been given exclusive use of a house under this government.

Question

I visited South Korea myself with the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee a couple of years ago and saw those opportunities. However, there is some concern about transparency around the use of trade envoys. Will the Minister confirm to the House that under this Government no trade envoy has ever demanded and been given the use of a house for their exclusive use?

Answer from Greg Hands

The hon. Gentleman has slightly jumped the gun, as the next question on the Order Paper relates to trade envoys. May I say how proud we are of the cross-party trade envoy programme, which does an excellent and good value-for-money job for the United Kingdom in promoting trade in a number of key markets?

Not addressed: Whether any trade envoy has been given exclusive use of a house under this government.

How: Jumped The Gun, Praise Cross-Party Programme

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)