A series of senior Conservatives have contradicted Kemi Badenoch after she criticised a landmark UK-India trade deal because it temporarily exempts seconded Indian workers from national insurance payments in the UK.
Oliver Dowden, who was deputy prime minister under Rishi Sunak, said the deal should be hailed as a dividend of Brexit that would bring economic growth and cheaper goods from India. Steve Baker, a former Brexit minister, called the tax issue a red herring, adding: 'We should be celebrating that a Labour government has furthered free trade in the national interest outside the EU.' Jacob Rees-Mogg tweeted: 'Cheaper food and drink including rice and tea, footwear and clothing thanks to a welcome trade deal with India.'
The deal, announced on Tuesday after more than three years of negotiations, cuts tariffs on a series of goods and is estimated to add £4.8bn a year to the UK economy by 2040. In an initial response, shadow trade secretary Andrew Griffith praised it, saying it showed the government recognised 'that reducing cost and burdens on businesses in international trade is a good thing, and that thanks to Brexit, we can do'. But later the tone changed, with Robert Jenrick tweeting that the national insurance exemption showed 'British workers come last in Starmer's Britain'. Badenoch followed suit, calling it 'two-tier taxes from two-tier Keir'.
Several pro-Brexit figures disagreed. Daniel Hannan wrote in the Telegraph that criticism of the deal based on tax, migration and tariffs was 'nonsense'. Shanker Singham, a trade economist, called it 'a significant achievement for UK trade policy'. Dowden noted it 'builds on significant progress made by the previous Conservative government'. The mutual exemption for seconded workers, which prevents double taxation, is routine in trade deals and featured in some negotiated under the Conservatives.
Asked about Badenoch's objection, her spokesperson said the worry was less the principle of the exemption but that India's larger population and lower wages could lead companies to bring over Indian workers at the expense of British workers. He suggested there were 'ways of setting up companies in countries, and then bringing workers over', despite the exemption applying only to temporary secondments within the same company.
