The easy yards have already been made. But with a China deal politically fraught, and a lack of interest from the Biden administration pushing a prized transatlantic pact with the US into the long grass, it will be hard, probably impossible, for the target to be reached

David Henig, director of the UK Trade Policy Project, says the FTA target was too simplistic.

“You’re trying to achieve a strong economy and this is not necessarily the best measure of the trade element of that,” he says. “You could have these trade deals in place and still not have a strong economy, particularly if they don’t suit the UK economy.”

Earlier this month, the National Audit Office warned that the DIT risks focusing too much on deals and neglecting to ensure businesses are making the most of existing agreements.

It also joined critics in arguing the Government should focus on developing a coherent trade strategy, rather than rushing into further deals without a set plan.

Michael Gasiorek, from Sussex’s Trade Policy Observatory, says DIT’s approach lacks “overall coherence”.

He says: “It really is not clear what the Government’s strategy is for trade policy, and for free trade agreements.”

Anne-Marie Trevelyan, who took up the role of trade secretary in Truss’s wake, has rejected the idea of creating a broad, formalised strategy.

Lorand Bartels, chair of the trade and agriculture commission (TAC), a panel of experts brought together to advise the Government on its deals, agrees that FTAs are a crude gauge of whether trade policy is succeeding.

“I don’t think they should be the measure of whether a government is succeeding or failing,” says Bartels, who is also a professor of international law at the University of Cambridge. “[But] there is one exception to that. And that is the relationship with the UK to the EU.”