Ways and Means
Monday 20th November 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text
Duties of Customs
Monday 20th November 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 76 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to move the first Ways and Means motion, I should make it clear to the House that all three founding resolutions will be debated together. I inform the House that I have selected amendments (e) and (f), tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray).
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That—
(a) provision may be made imposing and regulating a duty of customs chargeable by reference to the importation of goods into the United Kingdom,
(b) provision may be made conferring power to impose and regulate a duty of customs chargeable by reference to the export of goods from the United Kingdom,
(c) other provision may be made in relation to any duty of customs in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, and
(d) provision may be made dealing with subordinate matters incidental to any provision within any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
Since the British people took the decision to leave the European Union in June last year, the Government have taken a number of significant steps to put that decision into action, including triggering article 50, taking forward the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and, of course, undertaking the extensive consultation and planning that inform our negotiation objectives. The motions before us today represent another essential step in that process. We are here to debate legislation that will allow a new customs regime to be in place by the time the UK leaves the EU and its customs union and, in doing so, allow the UK to respond to the outcome of the negotiations. I do not need to tell the House how important that is.
The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill will pave the way for new domestic legislation that will enable the UK to establish a stand-alone customs regime. It will allow the UK to charge customs duty on goods, including those imported from the EU. It will allow the Government to set out how and in what form customs declarations should be made. It will also give the UK the freedom to vary rates of import duty as necessary, in particular in the case of trade remedies investigations and for developing countries.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister talks about the decisions that the Government have already made. Before they decided to trigger article 50 and begin the process, did they give any consideration to the complications that would be caused in the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which were explained to the Foreign Affairs Committee when we were in Dublin last week?
Mel Stride
In exercising article 50, the Government’s consideration was the decision taken by the British people in June last year to leave the European Union. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about the Northern Ireland-Ireland border, we are of the same mind as the European Union and the Irish Republic that there should be no return to the hard borders of the past. We are committed to as frictionless a solution as possible for the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister will be aware that the Irish Prime Minister has called on the UK Government to give a written guarantee that there will be no controls on the border. Is the Minister able to give that guarantee?
Mel Stride
We have made it clear on numerous occasions that we have no intention of reverting to the hard borders of the past, and that we will ensure that we fully take into account the unique political and cultural circumstances of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
In addition, the Bill will modify elements of our VAT and excise legislation to ensure that it functions effectively upon our EU exit. In doing so, the Bill will give the UK the power to implement new arrangements that will ensure that trade is as frictionless as possible.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Minister heard the judgment of the UK Chamber of Shipping, which talks of an “absolute catastrophe” unless issues relating to transport through the ports are resolved? Are the Government taking that seriously?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady raises an extremely important point, particularly in relation to roll-on/roll-off ports. I have been to Dover to meet the port’s chief executive and other staff, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is closely engaged through various roundtable exercises with all the UK’s ports. We recognise the paramount importance of ensuring that we have fluid trade flows through those ports. The hon. Lady will know that the White Paper set out clearly the sorts of approaches that we will be taking, if necessary, to ensure that those flows are rapid and effective, and that trade is kept moving.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Following our time together in Committee considering the Bill that became the Finance (No.2) Act 2017, the Minister will know my concern that small businesses in Britain will be saddled with the 13th VAT directive. He has set out that the Government’s intention is that a new directive will come into place before we leave the European Union, so will he clarify whether he expects British businesses to have to deal with all the vagaries of the 13th VAT directive?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Lady knows, at the point at which we leave the European Union, we will gain further control over VAT, although that depends on the precise nature of the deal that is negotiated. It might be that we move from acquisition VAT to import VAT depending on where that negotiation lands, which remains to be seen. The general principle is that the Government are entirely committed to ensuring that burdens on businesses are kept to an absolute minimum and that trade flows are maintained.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will be aware that there were many responses by manufacturing organisations to the White Paper on the Trade Bill. The British Ceramic Confederation, which is based in my constituency, is genuinely concerned about the market and trade remedies that will exist post-exit, particularly for dumped goods such as tiles and tableware, which could undermine the indigenous manufacturing base. Will he clarify what those remedies might look like once we leave the EU? The time between the closure of the consultation on the White Paper and the publication of the Trade Bill was very short, so we cannot really be sure whether those representations were considered.
Mel Stride
The bulk of the measures to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, including trade remedy measures on dumping, excessive subsidy and safeguarding. He will know that we take those issues extremely seriously. In the event that there is evidence of dumping or the other things to which I have referred, there will be a trade remedies authority, the details of which have already been disclosed to the House in the Trade Bill. That body and the Secretary of State for International Trade will be able to work together to ensure that, when there are problems due to activities such as dumping, we will be able to take appropriate action in the normal manner.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Will the Minister comment on the extent to which the Bill will allow the VAT and customs system to continue, whatever the outcome of the negotiations? Has enough flexibility been built in to the measure regardless of the outcome?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend raises an important point that goes to the heart of the Bill. This is a framework Bill, so it will allow us to make sure that we can deliver wherever the negotiations land. It does not presuppose any particular outcome from the negotiations; its purpose is to enable the outcome of the negotiations to be put into effect.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I have made it very clear to people in Broxtowe that I believe in our continuing membership of the customs union and the single market. Can the Minister help me with this? Will the measure be able to cope with all eventualities, including our staying de facto as a member of the customs union through a period of transition? Could we—if everything goes the way I would like—even stay a member of the customs union under this Bill, if that were the will of the Government and the House?
Mel Stride
The Bill deals with our leaving the European Union, which means, as a simple matter of law, that we will be leaving the customs union. However, it does indeed allow for a transition period in which there could be a very close customs association with the European Union.
Mel Stride
The Bill will be presented this evening. When the hon. Gentleman reads it tomorrow, he will be more enlightened as to how it can facilitate a period of transition.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister referred to the Bill’s ability to deliver in all possible circumstances. Is he aware of the report by the Home Affairs Committee and of discussions with HMRC about concerns over its capacity to deal with various customs arrangements? The report says that the Home Office is providing only an extra 300 staff by 2019, yet HMRC says that it needs 5,000 additional staff to cope with a changed customs regime. What assessment has he made of how many new staff are required and what they will cost?
Mel Stride
We will be guided by HMRC on the number of staff required, and we are working closely with it on this issue. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Jon Thompson, the head of HMRC, has suggested that between 3,000 and 5,000 staff will be needed in a day one contingency scenario, if that is where we end up, and he and HMRC are in discussions with us about both the timing of the pressing of the buttons on these issues and the costs involved. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that HMRC will be provided with whatever resources it requires to ensure that we are ready on day one.
Mr Leslie
Will the Minister assure us that the Bill, which, of course we do not have but which he is saying we will be able to see—although not until we have debated this paving resolution—will contain arrangements for sanitary and phytosanitary regulatory checks at Dover and the channel tunnel entrance and exit? They are not there at present and if we were going to institute customs checks, we would similarly have to institute those regulatory checks. Has Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs allowed for that in the budget as well?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman makes it sound as though the fact that we do not have the Bill available right now is in some way inappropriate or not right, but he will know that this Bill is a finance Bill—a taxation Bill—and it is coming in under Ways and Means. I will introduce the Bill at the end of this debate, having the opportunity to walk the Floor accordingly and to be admired by many Members on both sides of the House when I do so. He will also be aware that HMRC is involved in our ongoing negotiations on the issues he has raised, and these things will come out of those discussions in the normal manner.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that there is some faux misunderstanding of the situation going on here? There is a body of evidence of what life will be like outside the EU: our trade with the rest of the world. This is not a new thing we are doing; it is something we are replicating within the EU that exists in our trade with the rest of the world, which dwarfs what we do within the EU.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend raises an important point: our nation is quite capable of ensuring that wherever the negotiation lands, we will be able to have the resources, talents and wherewithal to go out and make a success of Brexit, getting out and engaging in our future trading arrangements. The important thing is that this Bill does not presuppose any particular outcome, but facilitates whatever outcome we finally arrive at.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is wrong to say that phytosanitary checks do not happen—or could not happen—at the moment? We experienced such checks clearly in 2001, at the time of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy outbreak. These things are very real and they happen from time to time. It is right that member states should be able to protect public health and animal health, and they are perfectly capable of doing so within the European Union.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend has put the point very clearly and effectively, and nothing in this Bill acts counter to our ability to act in the way he has suggested.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
As the Minister will know, more than 80% of the UK’s freight movement goes through the channel tunnel and the port of Dover. Anything that slows, let alone delays, that processing will cause massive backlogs, and the physical infrastructure is not yet in place to do this. Alongside the Bill he is presenting this evening, does he believe that we need to make sure the resources are there so that whatever is necessary is in place on day one to make sure the physical infrastructure can support cross-channel trade?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend raises a crucial point for ro-ro—roll on, roll off—ports, and these are just the kinds of issue that I discussed with the personnel and the chief executive at Dover when I visited. I have regular discussions with HMRC on these matters, and it in turn has regular roundtable events and a particularly close association with the port of Dover. He is absolutely right to say that we must ensure that trade is fluid and moves quickly across that border. He will have noted the suggestions set out in the White Paper of the pre-lodging of customs declarations away from the port—from Calais, in this instance—and making sure we have the right inventory software in the port so we can match up those goods coming in against those declarations to make sure we keep the flow going.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mel Stride
If I may, I will finish the point. As to my hon. Friend’s specific question about whether I believe we are ready, let me say that I believe we will be ready. I believe that the customs declaration system—the IT system that is coming into place—will be ready by January 2019, that we will start seeing businesses and traders migrating to that system around August next year, and that we will be in the position we want to be in come day one.
Mel Stride
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the figure is very low. I think it is a matter of a couple of minutes—if the whole system stopped for more than a couple of minutes we would start to see major problems, which is why we are placing such an extremely high priority on making sure that our ro-ro ports continue to move as effectively as they should.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his full responses to the questions on ro-ro. I wish to ask similar questions about our biggest port by value: Heathrow airport. With respect to the IT systems and other processes, will Heathrow be ready for this process?
Mel Stride
Yes, absolutely. In the case of Dover, most of the traffic is intra-EU trade, whereas a high proportion of the traffic going into Heathrow is more international than simply the EU, so there is already greater engagement with third-country trading. We are therefore confident that Heathrow will be ready.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
My right hon. Friend is giving a typically powerful and effective exposition on this incredibly complex and detailed matter. Does he agree that it is really important for the channel ports that parking facilities and resilience are built in off the M20 so that whatever eventuality arrives with respect to needing to do checks—whether for animal health or customs purposes—we have the right kind of infrastructure and facilities in place on day one?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and, before I address his specific question, I also thank him for his insights and the fairly powerful lobbying he has quite rightly done on behalf of the Port of Dover and his constituents. On his specific question about infrastructure being ready, we certainly recognise that we need to have infrastructure there and that the port itself would generally not be able to handle a large number of stoppages at any one time. As I say, I have been down to the port to inspect the facilities there, so I certainly appreciate that. That is an issue that is receiving ongoing consideration.
Mrs Ellman
Will the Minister tell us what financial provision is going to be made if Operation Stack has to be put into practice on the M20 every week, if not more regularly, when there is a blockage at the port?
Mel Stride
Of course, Operation Stack arose not because of a general deficiency in the customs arrangements but because of the specifics of what occurred on the French side of the channel. If that situation occurred again, which I suppose it could do irrespective of the arrangements we have for customs, the Government would clearly make sure that we had sufficient resource to deal with that eventuality. As I have said, though, in terms of the customs arrangements themselves, the resourcing of the facilities and the arrangements that we need to put into place, we are confident that they will be there to keep the traffic moving on day one.
Damian Collins
As the Minister will know, this is in the interests of my constituents, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). Will he confirm, if not from the Dispatch Box then in writing afterwards, that the £250 million allocated by the Government in the autumn statement two years ago for the provision of an Operation Stack relief lorry park on the M20 is still in place? The Department for Transport has unfortunately had to withdraw its plans for that lorry park because of a judicial review, but it intends to go back into the planning process with new plans. My constituents would benefit from knowing that the funds allocated to that project are still there.
Mel Stride
I have taken a rather large number of interventions, so in the interests of making progress I shall do as my hon. Friend suggests and write to him on that specific point.
Working in tandem with the Trade Bill, which was introduced to Parliament earlier this month, this legislation will help to provide the continuity and smooth transition that everybody wishes to see.
Let me be clear to the House that, by virtue of leaving the EU, the UK will also leave its customs union—that is a legal fact. It is also a critical part of allowing the UK to forge a new relationship with new partners around the world. Leaving the EU customs union will allow the UK to negotiate its own trade agreements. Those trade agreements will be based solely around the UK’s national interests and needs. We will also want to ensure that we have an ambitious new customs arrangement with the EU that will allow us to keep trade between the UK and EU member states as free and as frictionless as possible. As the Prime Minister has made clear, although we are leaving the EU, we are not leaving Europe. Having mutually beneficial customs, VAT and excise arrangements is clearly in the interests of businesses on both sides—a resounding message that we have been hearing from the hundreds of businesses that we have consulted on this matter since the referendum.
Crucially, the Government remain firmly committed to avoiding any physical infrastructure at the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. We welcome the recognition from our European partners that this is a point of absolute importance, by which I mean their commitment to the Good Friday agreement and their focus on flexible and creative solutions to avoid a hard border. We look forward to making progress on that issue.
To meet those core objectives—establishing an independent international trade policy, ensuring UK-EU trade that is as frictionless as possible and avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland—the Government have set out two options for our future customs regime. One is a highly streamlined customs arrangement. That approach includes a number of measures to help minimise barriers to trade: negotiating continued access to some facilitations that our traders currently enjoy; introducing innovative new-technology-based solutions to reduce the risk of delays; and simplifying and streamlining the administrative demands on businesses. The other is a new customs partnership. It is an unprecedented and innovative approach under which the UK would mirror the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world, removing a need for the formal customs border between the UK and the EU. Both of those options would take time to put in place. We are clear that “cliff-edge” changes are in no one’s interests. Businesses should have to adjust only once to a new customs relationship. It is for that reason that we are proposing an implementation period, during which businesses and Governments in both the UK and the European Union would have time to adapt. How long that period lasts and the form that it takes will be a matter for the negotiations, and it would of course cover issues beyond customs. However, as the Prime Minister has set out, the duration should be linked to the amount of time required to prepare for our future relationship with the EU. Current evidence points to the need for an implementation period of around two years.
Although the precise nature of the relationship that we will end up with on customs is a subject for the negotiations, there are sensible steps that we can take now to prepare for the future. This Bill is one of those steps, providing, as it does, a framework for a new customs regime. This will allow the Government to give effect to a range of outcomes from the negotiations, including an implementation period. Businesses have called for certainty and continuity, and this Bill will, as far as possible, allow us to replicate the effect of existing EU customs laws. It is only prudent that the Government should prepare for all eventualities, so this Bill will also allow the Government to operate effective customs, VAT and excise regimes even if a deal with the EU is not reached, although, as I have set out, a negotiated settlement is in the interest of all parties. That is exactly what the Government hope and expect to achieve.
Just as with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, this Bill is about laying the groundwork for our successful future outside the European Union. Trade is clearly going to be a key part of that. The UK has long been a great trading nation. Today, the UK’s trade with non-EU countries is equivalent to more than half of our exports by value, so getting our customs, VAT and excise arrangements right to support that—as well as continued trade with EU countries—is vital. We need to be able to pursue trade deals with partners across the world, while, at the same time, keeping our trade with the EU as frictionless as possible, and avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. This Bill is a crucial stepping stone to the new arrangements that will allow us to meet those objectives.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
At last, we have the Ways and Means motion before the House. The enigmatic—some might say pretty puzzling—part of it all is that it does not have much to say practically about taxation, cross-borders or trade. That is somewhat perplexing given that the title of the Bill is the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill. The only word in the title that in any way reflects this subject is the word “Bill”.
I wait with bated breath for the customs Bill, which I trust will have—hope springs eternal—more substance to it. Perhaps we will see more of the same powers to alter primary legislation going into Ministers’ back pockets. However, if this Ways and Means motion is the warm-up act to the customs Bill, I imagine that it will be just as disappointing, vague, opaque and abstruse.
I exhort the Minister to have a look at the representations of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I am sure that he will read those observations will alacrity, as I do. In the institute’s response to the Government’s White Paper, “Customs Bill: legislating for the UK’s future customs, VAT and excise regimes”, it made a number of observations that are worth highlighting. For example, paragraph 1.3 states:
“The paper gives rise to an unusually complex mix of legal and technical issues within equally complex political constraints. It is not our remit to enter into debate about the political constraints, but a lack of clarity around the political constraints makes the technical analysis somewhat more difficult.”
That is a fair reflection, in very measured tones, of what the rest of us think, which is that the cack-handed manner in which the Government have approached the negotiations with the EU has left the important detail that is necessary to ensure the deal that the Prime Minister ostensibly wants—namely, streamlined customs arrangements—to the vacillations of the Government in general and the Brexit Secretary in particular. That is very worrying.
It is worrying in that the Government continue to be dragged screaming and shouting to this Chamber on any issue that they feel uncomfortable debating. When they do discuss it, they try to curtail the debate. The Chartered Institute of Taxation also has something to say on that in paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of its response to the White Paper, which state:
“We acknowledge the predicament of needing to begin the legislative process before knowing the outcome of negotiations. However, we have concerns around the limited level of scrutiny that this law-making process allows, given the political uncertainty, the potential for large-scale changes and tight timescales… The Bill will, we understand, have the powers to amend primary legislation using secondary legislation; raising similar concerns around delegated powers as with the EU Withdrawal Bill.”
The Government are even dragging their feet on the production of the 58 impact assessments, some two weeks after this House demanded them. The Opposition recognise the need for the Government to begin preparations for an independent customs and tariff regime, as that is both logical and necessary. However, it does not mean giving the Government a blank cheque to concentrate power in the hands of the Executive. The upcoming Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill will outline the powers of a new trade remedies authority, the creation of which is outlined in the Government’s Trade Bill.
Let me be clear: although Labour supports the creation of a truly independent trade remedies authority to help to protect UK industry and advise the Government on how best to tackle the dumping of state-subsidised cheap goods on the UK market, we do not want to see an authority compiled of the International Trade Secretary’s cronies, who are tasked with advising him on how best to dismantle key sectors of the UK economy. Instead, we want a trade remedies authority that reports directly to Parliament, rather than to the Department for International Trade. It should have representatives from the trade union movement, British business and each of the devolved Administrations. We will not allow this House to be sidestepped or side-lined by a Government consumed by chaos.
Whether with the Henry VIII powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill or the delegated powers set out in the Trade Bill, this Government have shown an unhealthy obsession for cementing power in the hands of the Executive and shying away from any parliamentary scrutiny.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It seems that the mantra of “taking back control” that we saw during the EU referendum campaign essentially means taking back control to Ministers, not to this democratically-elected Parliament.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. That has been the line that this Government have taken. Power stops at Westminster and it does not go beyond. It is, quite frankly, a sham.
The Government cannot even bring themselves to include in this Ways and Means motion any reference whatever to parliamentary scrutiny; they do not like that. At every opportunity, even if the Government have contempt for this House, we will ensure that they will be forced to explain why they are so frightened of parliamentary scrutiny. At every corner, they will be required to explain in the cold light of day why they seem so reluctant to send Ministers to the Dispatch Box to explain the Government’s rationale.
Now, the Government, in their faux generosity, will claim that they have set aside eight days to debate the withdrawal Bill and other days to discuss Brexit. However, in the withdrawal Bill, they are institutionalising an accretion of powers to the Executive that is quite unheard of in the modern history of this country. [Interruption.] Ministers are huffing and puffing, but that is the reality: the accretion of power to Ministers is absolutely disgraceful.
We have to go back to the second world war to see powers of this magnitude and extent reserved to the Government, and those were dismantled as soon after the war as practical. At least our forebears had good reason in that situation, in so far as there was a national Government—a true coalition—united against one of the most odious regimes. The methods being used to sideline Parliament are quite shocking. History will treat this Government with the contempt they deserve for their feculent attempts to disenfranchise this House.
Mel Stride
I have patiently listened to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. He has referred to the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and to the operation, setting-up and independence or otherwise of the TRA. Neither of those items is actually included in this Bill, so what is it in this Bill that he wants to make a point about?
Peter Dowd
The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. This is part of the whole pattern and process by which this Government accrue and accrue powers. Government Members do not seem to grasp that concept, but the fact is that the Government continue to pull powers to themselves and do not devolve them to any of the other nations.
Anna Soubry
I think the hon. Gentleman is really struggling on this. It makes eminent sense that the Government should have the powers to deal with all eventualities. Perhaps he could help this place by explaining the Labour party’s current policy on the customs union. Is the Labour party in favour of us remaining in the customs union de facto as we go into transition, or is it against that? Is it in favour of our staying in the customs union by way of a final deal, which I think is an eminently good idea?
Peter Dowd
I will tell the right hon. Lady what we are in favour of: parliamentary scrutiny. It was John Bright who reportedly coined the phrase “the Mother of Parliaments”, which is completely alien to Conservative Members and, obviously, to the right hon. Lady. I suspect that he, along with many other Radical and Conservative parliamentarians, would be turning in his grave at the idea that a Government living on borrowed time have the arrogance, hubris and others would say bluster to treat Parliament in the fashion this Government are intent on doing.
Conservative Members have to ask themselves this question: did their constituents send them to this House to acquiesce is the systematic stripping away of parliamentary scrutiny, which is not in the national interest, or did they send them here to hold the Government to account, regardless of their party allegiance? The Minister should take seriously the concerns I have raised, as many others inside and outside the House have, about the fast and loose approach the Government are taking to parliamentary scrutiny.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman has not answered the incredibly important intervention made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). Can I ask him a different question? Will he be supporting amendment (e), which is the unofficial Opposition amendment?
Peter Dowd
The fact of the matter is that we are not closing off options, which the Government seem to have a pathological obsession with doing.
I hope that, between now and Second Reading, the Government will consider the importance of comprehensive parliamentary oversight and pay attention to the concerns of this House in relation to this whole question.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
It is a pleasure to stand here tonight and to talk about this Bill on behalf of my constituents. Having listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), they might have been a bit surprised to hear that there was no point to this place at all. However, what we are doing tonight, if we pass these resolutions, is giving our consent to the Government bringing in a Bill that is a key part of enabling us to have the proper machinery of Government if, and as, we leave the European Union. This is not a warm-up act for the Bill itself; this is a gateway we need for the Bill, and it is entirely sensible. This is about giving our consent to the Government making changes to financial matters that will affect every one of our constituents.
As part of those mechanics, we have a massive opportunity to set our own tariffs and duties as we go forward as a nation and to set our own trade policy and all that goes with that. However, this is a very technical matter.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks as if it was an entirely unilateral decision on our part what tariffs and trade agreements we have. We have to get out there into the wide world and try to negotiate these trade agreements. Does he not acknowledge that we are in a much weaker bargaining position than we were when we were negotiating those as part of the EU?
Mr Fysh
I do not accept that at all, but I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We have a major opportunity to think about what tariffs are best for all of our economy, rather than always having to think about just the EU. This is a really big opportunity to shape many of our industries, when we have just had to cope with a one-size-fits-all solution for many years now.
Our ability to cope on day one is dependent on the measures in the Bill being effective. I have to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for listening so intently when I have slightly harangued him about trying to ensure that we have enough resource and application on these detailed matters. It is absolutely right that leaving the European Union is a complex business; it is not something we can just assume will be fine. We really need to devote resource, time and application, and to get as much as we can out of the private sector advising and helping us, to make sure we have the necessary technological solutions as part of these processes.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is very much about preparing the way for when we leave the EU? When we talk about going forward with a global Britain, that is about seeking every opportunity we can to take our country forward.
Mr Fysh
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I completely agree.
It is massively important that we look at the data systems, and I have talked a lot with Ministers about the customs declaration service that we are putting in place by January 2019. I have met industry representatives, and I have to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for organising some of those meetings in a very efficient fashion. They have been incredibly useful in bringing key civil servants and key stakeholders up to date with exactly what is required.
I do not think we need to reinvent the wheel. We do not need to go for full, all-singing, all-dancing, new solutions overnight; there are some practical steps we can take in the interim. We heard from one panel about a system called Intrastat, whereby economic flows around the European Union, based on actual transactions, are recorded. It was suggested that it is possible to, effectively, bolt the tracing of different liabilities on to that system, with the customs system operating in parallel with it.
What our partners in the EU, or in any other part of the world, want to know when goods are moving across one of their borders is what is in those consignments and whether they need to think about a tariff or take into account some other regulatory provision. It is massively important that we can talk to our counterparts on the other side. I implore Ministers to try to persuade the EU, even though so far it has been very reluctant, to allow member states’ national customs authorities to talk properly to us about what data interfaces are going to be required for what will probably be quite a lot of extra transactions and considerations that will have to be made. I certainly stand ready to help with my contacts, if I can, to enable some of those conversations to happen. Whether it is a ramped-up trade facilitation exercise—the “option 1” that the Minister described—or a partnership based on a new type of tracing of the way in which goods move around our economy and across our external borders and those of the EU, at the moment, we will need to make and record lots of declarations of one kind or another, and the other side will have to be confident that what we say is the status of these goods is in fact the case.
VAT processing has been the Cinderella of this conversation over the past few months. Everyone has been focused on the duty side, and not enough focus and attention has been given to the VAT side. The manner of the processing of VAT really makes a difference to very many businesses, and it is a major cash-flow issue for most businesses. If we want to stay open to ideas, as we do, with our EU friends and allies, and if we want to have good facilitation of cross-border trade, we need to address, for example, the ability of a vendor to attend a trade show and take a load of samples with them, because if there is a VAT issue, that could really be a problem. It is also a problem in the art world where very high-value objects are moving around. We need to think about that.
Stella Creasy
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Does he share my concern that because the Government are not giving any clarity on this issue, it is very likely that British businesses will have to deal with all the vagaries of the 13th directive on VAT unless we look for some clarity on retaining our current systems for trading, whether through the customs union or the single market?
Mr Fysh
I thank the hon. Lady. I agree that we need clarity as early as possible on all these issues, and I encourage Ministers to come forward with ideas on that.
Returning to what we heard about Ireland in various interventions on the Minister, I would like him to think about whether, in the VAT resolutions, we are confining ourselves a little too much by saying that the Government may not, through the Bill, make any amendment relating to VAT rates, exemptions and zero rating. One of the issues with the Irish border historically, and where the real problems came from when Ireland was given its independence, was the amount of smuggling, and the rates and tariffs on goods going into the UK were a major factor in that. Perhaps we could look to smoothing the feelings and the actual processes on the Irish border to make sure that, as far as possible, our VAT rates are as harmonised as they could be so that there is no temptation to smuggle there.
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend makes some extremely important points. In connection with the Irish border, a derogation already exists, potentially, between the European Union and its neighbouring states through EC regulation 1931/2006, which allows, particularly within a certain distance of the border, small and medium-sized enterprises legally to avoid duties and customs, thus ensuring and promoting cross-border trade. Does he agree that that model could be appropriate on the island of Ireland?
Mr Fysh
I thank my hon. Friend. That is a very interesting point, and I am sure that Ministers will look at it.
The Irish economy probably has more to lose than any other party in the negotiations between us and the EU. We have been talking in our papers about wanting to maintain the common transit convention, and that is probably right. Ireland is incredibly dependent on that because 80% of its trade with the mainland EU goes via our UK land bridge. There are many issues with that, not least the licensing of drivers who currently drive these goods across the borders in a seamless fashion. We need to make sure that we focus on enabling that if we want—
Mr Fysh
I cannot take any more interventions, I am afraid, because other people want to speak.
Given the apparent attitude of the Government of the Republic of Ireland to some of these matters at the moment, we should not automatically assume that we will allow them access to the common transit convention. Ministers should take a pretty firm view of that given that we certainly do not want our islands and our nations to be split into different areas. I am very happy to support these resolutions.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am pleased that the Government have finally brought forward something that is at least a bit more solid than things were previously, albeit not yet very solid.
The customs White Paper says that we should refer to the future partnership agreement and to the Northern Ireland position paper, and the Northern Ireland position paper says that we should refer to the customs White Paper—this is a complete guddle! Having read all these things, not only am I still not clear about how customs will look after the UK leaves the EU, but I am not clear about how the UK Government want customs to look. The only thing that I am even vaguely clear about is that they want the process to be as close to frictionless as possible, yet they have not made any clear commitments about exactly how they expect that to work. Let us look at some of the things they have said in their various papers. With regard to Northern Ireland, for example, they want to agree
“at an early stage a time-limited interim period, linked to the speed at which implementation of the new arrangements could take place, that allows for a smooth and orderly transition.”
I might be wrong, but I think that now is an early stage. In fact, before now would have been a good time at which to make decisions and commitments, and to be clear to business about at least what the direction of travel is, but we are not there yet. We are very close to Brexit day. Brexit day is coming in March 2019—who knows at what time?—and the Government have not been clear with businesses about even their aspirations for how customs will look.
It is undoubtedly the case that we benefit from being members of the EU single market and members of the customs union. Even those who are most vociferously in favour of Brexit agree that we benefit from those things. The lower estimate of the effect on GDP due to leaving the customs union and the single market is that we will lose 3.8%. The upper estimate of the effect of the trade deals that we will strike with Japan, the USA, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India all added together is a gain of 2.37 percentage points. That is significantly less than the 3.8% that we are going to lose, so even on the best estimates, we are going to be down. The EU is pretty close to striking a trade deal with some of those countries anyway, so the benefits to us are notional rather than actual.
The single market and the customs union continue to benefit us. We are told by the independent and respected Fraser of Allander Institute that a hard Brexit could cost Scotland 5% in GDP growth. A really interesting paper by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research told us last year that if we have these free trade arrangements instead of being a member of the single market and customs union, Scotland will lose £5 billion of exports in services alone. That is very significant. Analysis by the Scottish Government states that Scottish GDP could be around £11 billion a year lower by 2030 than would be the case if Brexit did not occur.
For those reasons and many others, we in the SNP have been clear from the beginning that we are against Brexit. We are against driving off this cliff, and we are against the incredibly hard landing that will happen when the Brexit bus hits the bottom. Despite our opposition to all these things, we are trying in this House to mitigate the impacts of Brexit. If the Government are determined to drive us off this cliff, we will try to make sure that there are fewer spiky things at the bottom for us to be impaled on.
I do not know how many Members have read the Government’s White Paper on customs, but it refers to the Government’s two proposed scenarios for the working of the future customs relationship. It also talks about contingency options for if the Government do not achieve their aspirational, bespoke deal—nobody has ever managed to get such a deal, and the Government do not really know what it is—and I think that people at home will be really interested to hear what it says. In a contingency situation, there would not be a £15 VAT-free threshold on parcels posted to people by family members, businesses and organisations in the EU. The Ways and Means motions that we are supposed to be agreeing today would allow the Government to charge VAT on gifts sent to people from the EU, which is ridiculous. If somebody gets a parcel worth less than £15 from a person in America, no VAT is payable on it, but the Government propose that such an exemption would not apply to things that came from the EU in a contingency situation. A lot of people would be pretty unhappy to discover that they will have to pay a customs charge on presents or other items that have come from the EU. Such things have not been spelled out to people or fully discussed.
I have referred to the various papers—I think we are up to four—that the Government have published on this matter. They have been pretty comprehensively savaged not just by experts, but by businesses, which are the real experts in this area. The Minister talked about roll-on/roll-off ports and the speed at which things have to come through ports. The Government have tried and failed to solve the problems with Operation Stack at Dover. Only last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), put out a statement to say, “Our plans for sorting out Operation Stack are, basically, dead in the water, and we’re going to have to start again. But don’t worry: we’ll definitely have something done by March 2019 when the UK leaves the customs union and the single market.”
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The hon. Lady will agree that the oil and gas industry, which is important to both our constituencies, largely trades internationally outside the EU. It does not fear international trade. Is it wrong?
Kirsty Blackman
I am not saying that anybody should fear international trade. International trade is a very good thing, particularly for productivity, for example, which the oil and gas industry has been quite good at bringing up. The more international trade a country has, the better its productivity growth, but Brexit is not going to result in more international trade—[Interruption.] Brexit is going to result in the UK having more say over the terms of some trade deals with third countries. It will not result in more international trade, because the EU is international—it is made up of a number of other countries—and there is going to be a reduction in frictionless trade to the EU as a result of the changes. [Interruption.]
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
My hon. Friend will have noticed that Conservative Members are expressing a fair degree of anger. Clearly some of them do not believe her when she says that Brexit will not lead to an increase in international trade. The Government have carried out assessments, so is it not the case that if they wanted to demonstrate that Brexit would lead to an increase in international trade, they could quite easily publish those assessments and we could find out for ourselves?
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree.
Monique Ebell from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has written a report that compares participation in very comprehensive free trade agreements with membership of an organisation such as the single market, which is pretty much unparalleled in its encouragement of cross-border trade. Being part of a very close free trade arrangement does not give the same access to trade in services or goods as membership of the single market. Even if we had a comprehensive free trade agreement with every country in the world, we would still lose out as a result of Brexit.
Dr Murrison
I am listening with a great deal of interest to what the hon. Lady has to say. The amendments she tabled express commendable encouragement to the European Union, which does her great credit. However, in the interests of being balanced and fair, is she also concerned for much of Africa and South America? At the moment, they suffer the whip end of the customs union, as it makes the export of raw food products to Europe virtually impossible for many of them. Would she like to comment on that, since I am sure that the SNP is very concerned to promote the wellbeing of people in those countries?
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting case. I have not looked into all the impacts, but the WTO gives developing countries tariff protection, for example. It is likely that some of these things balance out, but I have not looked into the exact details. I am aware that some Brexit supporters are suddenly concerned about how developing countries will cope with international trade, although they were not particularly worried about that before.
I want to move on to talk specifically about some of the impacts of the proposed changes. I have mentioned the problems that people sending and receiving parcels might face. The Government’s “Future customs” paper states:
“Trade is a key driver of growth and prosperity. It stimulates greater business efficiency and higher productivity, sharing knowledge and innovation across the globe.”
It goes on to say that trade
“provides a foundation for stronger and more prosperous communities. It ensures more people can access a wider choice of goods at lower cost”.
Those are all arguments for staying in the customs union, not leaving it.
All the Government’s papers refer to consulting businesses. In all our conversations, the Government have said that they have spoken to businesses. The problem is that although businesses are lobbying the Government as loudly as they possibly can about the impacts of Brexit, the Government are not listening. The Government have an aspirational picture of how wonderful Brexit is going to be and no matter how much evidence to the contrary they are provided with, they continue to push on. Even Conservative Members who supported remain are suggesting, in the main, that we will have benefits from Brexit. In my eyes, that is not right.
The customs declaration service was mentioned by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh). The Minister is generally very good at explaining such things. He has said that he hopes to have pilots soon, with the service up and running by January 2019, but three months is not enough to test a customs declaration service fully. It is not enough to allow businesses to iron out all the problems that might arise or to get used to the red tape.
I want to go back to the issues raised by some of the Government’s aspirations and ideas that are, honestly, unworkable. One of the nine principles they have set out for what they expect to do to deal with trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland is:
“Consider how best to protect the integrity of both the EU Customs Union, Single Market and trade policy, and the new independent UK customs regime, internal market and trade policy, in the context of finding flexible and imaginative solutions, while recognising that the solution will need to go beyond any previous precedents.”
That is an aspiration without a solution. They are not putting forward a potential solution. They cannot even think of anything to square this circle, fix this problem or dig themselves out of the hole into which they have fallen.
This is an unmitigated disaster. The changes that the Government propose, particularly the customs duties that will be put on goods coming from the EU, or leaving the UK to go to the EU, are a disaster for businesses and for people at home. Some of those goods cross the border several times. For organisations such as car manufacturers or aerospace companies, sometimes the widgets—for want of a better word—cross from the UK to the EU and back many times before there is a finished product. If there has to be a customs declaration each time, and if there is an increase of even a few minutes in the time taken on each occasion, real problems will be caused to a huge number of businesses.
Businesses are speaking to the Government and raising concerns, but the Government are not listening. They now need to give businesses a clear direction. They need to make it absolutely clear today that their intention is that we will not have customs duties between the UK and the EU, so they should support the amendments.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Great Britain’s historical reputation as one of the greatest trading nations on earth can be revived and rejuvenated by Brexit. In freeing ourselves from our EU blinkers, we can now open our eyes to the rest of the world and the vast new opportunities that lie ahead of us. Scotland, as a proud partner in the UK, has played a crucial role in cementing Britain’s place as a truly great trading nation. The city of Glasgow was a key trading centre for the UK and acted as an international business hub. For the past 40 years, the UK has legally been forbidden from striking its own trade deals.
Ross Thomson
No, I will not give way at the moment. I want to make some progress.
As we decouple from the EU, I am excited by the opportunity for Scotland to play a key role in a global trading Britain once again.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman and I argued during the Scottish independence referendum that one of the key arguments for Scotland not leaving the UK was that it would leave the UK single market, which would mean having a hard border at Berwick. Does he think the same in relation to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?
Ross Thomson
Let us be absolutely clear that during that referendum campaign, the hon. Gentleman and I were on the same side. It actually said on page 210 of the White Paper produced by the Scottish Government that, if we voted to stay within the UK, the UK could very well leave the European Union. Everyone had all the information to hand and they voted with their eyes open, and Opposition Members have—
Ross Thomson
Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene, rather than shouting.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify that that is not what I asked him. I said that we were on the same side in the independence referendum, and one of the key arguments we both made incessantly during the referendum was that the UK single market would be broken up if Scotland became independent, which would require a hard border. The question was: why is that any different from the situation in Ireland now?
Ross Thomson
As we have heard from the Minister, no one wants a hard border between the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and the Government are working to achieve just that. I also made it clear during the referendum campaign that I have always believed in Britain’s future being outwith the European Union. I made such an argument, and I am sure others, especially those in the Labour party, would have done so too if they had perhaps been a bit more honest about their positions.
Ross Thomson
No. I want to make some more progress.
Scotland’s exports are world-renowned—I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and I can absolutely agree about that—and whisky is just one example of a British export success story, with more than 90% of Scotch whisky being sold outwith the UK.
Ross Thomson
No. I want to make some more progress.
The city I represent, Aberdeen, is a global leader in some of the most innovative sectors, such as life sciences, new oil and gas technology, and food and drink. As the oil capital of Europe, Aberdeen is a global city and new bilateral trade deals—whether with the US, South America, Africa or even the middle east—will help the granite city to grow and to take advantage of trade inward and outbound investment.
Ross Thomson
No. I want to make more progress.
Furthermore, striking new trade deals will unlock the potential of many more Scottish businesses, helping them to make their mark around the world and boosting our economy at home, too. If we are to seize these opportunities and make the greatest possible success of them, Britain needs to be ready on day one of our exit from the EU for new trade relationships. On this point, the clock is now ticking.
Ross Thomson
No.
That is why this customs Bill is so important. Irrespective of any agreements reached between the UK and the EU as part of the negotiation and exit process, the UK will need primary legislation to create its own stand-alone customs regime, and to amend the VAT and excise regimes so that they can function effectively after the UK has left the EU.
The Bill will create a framework that lasts for a new UK customs regime. It will lay before us the necessary foundations to allow new arrangements on customs to be put in place depending on whatever the outcomes of the Brexit negotiations are, such as the implementation of a negotiated settlement with the EU, or leaving the EU without an agreement on customs.
I am sure that all Members of this House want our withdrawal from the EU to provide as much certainty and continuity as is possible for our businesses, employees and consumers. Currently, as the majority of rules governing customs in the UK are contained in directly applicable EU law, such as the Union customs code, it is important at this stage that new domestic legislation is brought forward and put in place for when we leave the EU in March 2019.
In the longer term, depending on the outcome of the negotiations with the EU, the Government will want to consult on possible changes to this law to help UK businesses, but now is the time to help businesses in all of our constituencies by providing the continuity of the existing rules, wherever possible.
Ross Thomson
No.
Furthermore, the Government will ensure, as they do at present, that their future customs regime is consistent with internationally agreed rules and arrangements. What does this mean in practice? As we all know, trade is not just about the trade deals that we strike or where the growing markets are in the world; it is also about the tariffs, regulatory barriers and terms of trade that we decide to set as part of a new UK policy. The Bill therefore enables the UK to establish a new UK tariff, charge customs duty on goods, set and vary rates of customs duty, and suspend or relieve duty at import in certain circumstances. The UK will be able to set preferential duties and additional duties—for example, to implement a preferential tariff applicable to developing countries.
Ross Thomson
No, I want to make this important point: free and fair trade is the greatest poverty alleviation policy. As the Secretary of State for International Trade has already highlighted, over the last generation more than 1 billion people have been taken out of abject poverty, thanks to the success of global trading. The Bill will therefore enable the development of policy that helps some of the world’s poorest and developing countries to trade their way out of poverty, rather than simply to depend on aid.
As we set an independent UK trade policy for the first time in 40 years and take up our own seat at the World Trade Organisation, we as champions of free trade can be at the forefront of ensuring that, across the world, there is an ever widening sharing of prosperity. Such prosperity encourages and develops social cohesion, underpins political stability and supports conflict resolution, which in turn supports Britain’s own national security aims. The Bill also includes powers for the Government to introduce trade remedies and to protect domestic industries from injury caused by dumped, subsidised or unexpected surges of imports.
In all of this debate, the key point to bear in mind and to stress is that once the UK is outside the EU’s customs union, we will take our destiny into our own hands and be able to determine our own overall independent trade policy. We will no longer be bound by the EU’s protectionist tariff structure. Free of this, we will have the choice to lower duties on goods. In leading the world on free and fair trade, we can take forward a policy that liberalises trade. I am excited and optimistic about the new deeper and freer trade deals we will be able to strike that will support businesses and services in my constituency.
The golden opportunity of Brexit is the opportunity to open up our markets and lead the world in liberalising trade across the globe. It is not every day that an economy the size of the UK gets to set up a new Department for trade, or to draw up and set its own trade policy. This opportunity will not come again, so let us seize it with both hands.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
With deep pleasure, I beg to move amendment (e), in paragraph (a), after “goods”, insert
“other than goods originating from the European Union”.
I will also speak to amendment (f). Both amendments stand in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Let me first say to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) that, although I did not agree with a word he said, I thought he made a good speech. However, while he and I have always disagreed on the European Union and we respect each other’s position—I am very much an elected Member of Parliament who wishes to stay in the EU; I am pro-European Union and he is very much anti-European Union—I have to point out to him the complete intellectual incoherence of the two arguments he makes. He says we can leave the single market, the customs union and European Union and have a frictionless, seamless, invisible border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but during the Scottish independence referendum campaign, he argued that leaving the UK single market would result in a hard border in goods, services and the movement of people. He does the fight against the scourge of independence in Scotland no good by making those contradictory arguments. Many of the arguments that our colleagues in the Scottish National party make about staying in the European Union and working with our closest colleagues and neighbours with regard to trade in goods and free movement of people completely contradict their arguments on coming out of the UK single market. These positions are contradictory, and I warn politicians that when they play with fire, they get burned.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to amendment (e), to which he is the lead signatory? It would close off options and prevent us from imposing any tariffs on goods from the EU. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) described such closing off of options as “pathological”. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) always strikes me as a very nice chap; does he share my concern that his own Front-Bench spokesman thinks that amendment (e) is pathological?
Ian Murray
I anticipated that intervention, although not quite so early in my speech. I return the hon. Gentleman’s compliments—he is one of the nicest gentlemen in this House. The Labour party’s position on the customs union is that we want the UK to have tariff-free access to the European Union throughout the transition period, with the added option of the UK staying in the customs union. That is the position of our Front-Bench team. It is perfectly clear and chimes perfectly well with amendments (e) and (f).
I am disappointed that the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) were not selected. She has done a lot of work to bring the Ways and Means motion to the House, and I think the arguments advanced reflect the fact that we both want our country to stay in the single market and the customs union, not for ideological reasons, but because we know that the businesses of Aberdeen North and Aberdeen South require us to stay. It is impossible to suggest that the United Kingdom should have exactly the same benefits of the single market and the customs union, with a frictionless border and tariff-free access, but not keep the customs union and the single market on the table. It makes no sense.
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Often it is said that sometimes we just need to simplify: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. If everything the Government are saying they want looks like and sounds like the customs union and single market, why are we wasting time debating other things?
Ian Murray
I am tempted to say that is because they are all quackers, but I am sure that would not go down well and I gave up on the bad jokes some time ago. My hon. Friend is right: the Government are actually arguing for the single market and the customs union, but do not want either. That is why the Bill on the customs union, which will be published tomorrow, will show clearly that the Government are hell-bent in the negotiations with the EU to take us off a cliff edge. No deal is probably their preferred option, and that is what they are promoting in the Ways and Means motion.
Stephen Doughty
Is my hon. Friend intrigued to learn that a former Minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union plans to make a speech tomorrow arguing for precisely that proposal—that we should abandon all plans and trade talks and move ahead into a no-deal, WTO-rules Brexit?
Ian Murray
If that is indeed the case, anyone who is surprised by that speech has not been listening to the debate to date. It seems that the whole thrust of the Government’s negotiating position so far has been to just walk away—that no deal would be the best deal to have. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said at Prime Minister’s questions not long ago, the Prime Minister is in thrall to the extreme right-wing Brexiteers of the Conservative party, and that is dictating the Government’s policy. We can see from this evening’s debate that that is true.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We will have to think about investment in this country if there is no deal, because a lot of international companies have invested here for the option of being able to trade in Europe. There would be serious consequences, particularly for industry.
Ian Murray
Indeed, and I will come to more of those arguments later in my speech. The Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, visited the border regions in Ireland and Northern Ireland just last week, and one of the key concerns we heard from the businesses that employ many thousands of workers on both sides of the border was that they use the UK as the transit route into the European Union. We are the landing strip for all the goods they export through the United Kingdom into the European Union, because it is the fastest way; the alternatives are not suitable for their businesses. It will be exactly the same for businesses in Coventry, in Aberdeen and in Edinburgh South. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South spoke eloquently about the Scotch whisky industry, which we all defend and champion. That industry needs easy access to the markets in which it sells its products, so it too is pushing for as close a deal as possible to the customs union.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend will be aware that the finest Scotch whisky in the world is sold in ceramic bottles made in my constituency. Exiting the European Union without a proper trade deal will result in not only the price of the whisky but the cost of the bottle going up, which will threaten jobs in my constituency. What does he make of the Government’s proposals so far on market and trade remedies?
Ian Murray
I am glad my hon. Friend makes that point because the Scotch whisky industry is not just a Scottish industry. It is a UK-wide industry involving bottling, packaging and delivery companies—a whole UK supply chain. If the main driver of that supply chain, which is the whisky coming out of Scotland, is disturbed, the jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency are potentially disturbed, too.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Much though I enjoy a decent malt whisky, the impact of leaving the customs union would be far greater. If we take into account the agriculture, defence, aerospace and automotive industries, it is clear that if we do not get this right, the impact on complex supply chains in the integrated European Union marketplace could severely disrupt the UK economy.
Ian Murray
That is why the three motions before us tonight, the customs Bill, the Trade Bill and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill are so important.
Chris Bryant
Before my hon. Friend moves on from Scotch whisky, I wonder whether he would like to comment on the fact that when several of us were in Peru recently, Peruvian Ministers asked the British ambassador what we wanted out of a new free trade deal with Peru, post-Brexit, adding that they knew what they wanted: all Scotch whisky to be made in Peru, or at least 40% of it, or at least for the whisky to be bottled in Peru. Does not that undermine the argument made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson)?
Ian Murray
Absolutely. My hon. Friend tempts me to go down a road you may not want me to take, Mr Deputy Speaker, but let me at least tiptoe to the start of that road. Not only does the EU give Scotch whisky solid legal protection, but Scotch whisky has to be made in Scotland, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has highlighted, the supply chain extends across the United Kingdom. We will be competing with markets where bottling and packaging are much cheaper, not only for Scotch whisky but for a host of other manufactured items that this country makes so much money from—money that pays for our public services and creates employment for our people.
While I am on that point, can the Minister tell us what representations he will make in the talks to leave the EU with regard to defending big industries such as aerospace, automotive, and food and drink, which in Scotland is underpinned by the Scotch whisky industry? In the 20 minutes or so in which he spoke and in answer to a lot of questions from my right hon. and hon. Friends, it was clear that HMRC, customs and so on will need more resources. The Government cannot tell us how much more they will require, why they will require them, when they will get them and whether that will be enough. It is very easy for Ministers to talk in platitudes, but we need solid answers on how many people are required and what the consequences will be for the public purse.
Tom Brake
Is the hon. Gentleman surprised, as I am, that Government Members seem quite content to recruit 3,000 to 5,000 more people for HMRC, and, as I understand it, 1,200 more people to work for the Home Office—many, incidentally, from the EU, because of a shortage of staff? Was this not about getting rid of red tape? It seems the Government are willing to invest huge amounts in creating more red tape.
Ian Murray
That is a key secondary argument to the one I have been making. They say they want everything to be as close as possible: they want it to be frictionless and as close to the customs union as we currently are. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said that if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck. I do not understand, and have never understood, the Government’s position in taking the single market and the customs union off the table. Regardless of whether we want to argue that they are positive or negative, good for the country or bad, they immediately took them both off the table, so right from the very start the negotiating position was diminished, for all the reasons my hon. Friend has just mentioned.
Chris Bryant
Is my hon. Friend aware—he probably is not, because I have not yet told him—that a couple of weeks ago I asked the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU whether a deal like the Canada’s free trade agreement with the EU would be a good deal for Britain. He said, “No, because it would not be as good a deal as the customs union. It would leave us worse off.” I therefore cannot see how one can possibly argue that one should automatically discount staying in the customs union.
Ian Murray
That is indeed the case. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada has been held up as a blueprint for what world trade agreements should look like in the future, and we look as though we are just about to walk away from it because we want something better. If there was something better, I am sure Canada and the EU would have negotiated it. I was aware of my hon. Friend’s question, because I was sitting behind him when he posed it to the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU during Brexit questions. I thank him for his intervention.
I would like to set out the three reasons why I tabled my amendments. The first reason chimes with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said from the Opposition Front Bench about Parliament having a say. “Taking back control” became the strapline for the leave campaign during the EU referendum. If taking back control is truly what we wish to do—I think that it is what the public wishes us to do—it should surely mean taking back control for this Parliament. Whether through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, this Ways and Means motion or the customs Bill when it is published, Ministers will hold the power to do anything they want, carte blanche—on trade, tariffs, immigration and removing us from the EEA and the customs union—without any recourse at all to this House.
In the past six weeks or so, the Government have been championing a meaningful vote—whatever a meaningful vote would mean—that would be neither meaningful nor even a vote. The Government’s position on what it means is never the same from one day to the next. Indeed, a couple of weeks ago they made three clarifications on one day, with the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister saying contradictory things. Their spokespeople had to correct what they had said, as they had both been incorrect.
We need greater clarity from the Government, rather than platitudes from the Minister, on what they want to do. Lord Callanan has had to make two statements to correct what he said about article 50 in the other place just a few weeks ago. We need answers to these questions. Opposition Members are very doubtful about whether we can trust a Government who say, “We’ll take the power. We may not use it. We may use it. We need to use it. We need to have it in case we want to use it, but trust us everything will be fine.” Unfortunately, trust has to be earned. The Opposition are being told clearly that they cannot trust the Government to do things properly on our behalf, because they are not able to do so. My first point, therefore, is to ensure that that power is not held by Ministers. We should give Parliament a say if we truly want to take back control.
That leads on to my second point. Nobody in this House, when we get to the end of this process, will ever have voted on leaving the customs union. Nobody will ever have voted on leaving the single market. Nobody will ever have voted on leaving the EEA. The people of this country voted to leave the European Union. When we start to work through the process and see how complicated it is—how difficult it could be for businesses, and all the challenges, barriers and hurdles that will be put in place—it is quite clear that nothing can be as good as what we have at the moment. Whatever happens, there will be losers, but nobody voted to be poorer. It is wrong for the Government to bring this motion on excluding tariffs with the European Union, because nobody has yet voted for us to leave the customs union. The customs union is vital to this country and not just for businesses on the UK mainland—I will come on to comment on the island of Ireland shortly.
My third point, and the main reason why the motion should be defeated or at least amended, is that the Government are clearly preparing for no deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said that a former Minister will make a speech tomorrow saying that the Government should be persuaded to prepare for no deal. It seems that the talks are stalling. The clock is still ticking, but they seem to be no further forward. The Brexit Secretary and the Foreign Secretary seem to have the attitude that we can wrap ourselves up in a Union Jack, ride the waves like Britannia used to and everyone will listen to us. That is the sort of 19th century British arrogance that created many of the problems in the world today. Everything the Government are putting through Parliament is being done on the basis of preparation for no deal, which would be utterly disastrous for this country.
I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting my amendments. Let me tell the House why no deal would be disastrous and why I tabled them. We have heard many Members talk about that economic impact. Our annual goods trade with other countries within the customs union is £466 billion. It has been estimated that leaving the customs union would cost £25 billion every year until 2030. If the Opposition brought a proposal to this House for the Government to consider that cost £500 billion and £25 billion every year, the word “bankruptcy” would be coming out of the Minister’s mouth every second minute. It would be irresponsible for us to do that, yet that is what is being proposed with the customs Bill and this motion.
The cost of new tariffs alone could be at least £4.5 billion for UK exports, according to detailed research, and analysis by HMRC suggests that new customs checks could increase the cost of imported goods by up to 24%. We have already had reports that there will be 17-mile tailbacks at ports across the United Kingdom. I wonder whether the Minister can remember the French customs strike and how long the queues were. They formed very quickly and the impact on local communities, let alone the perishable goods sitting in trucks, was devastating. It is okay for the Minister to suggest that we will have so many customs border checks and that we will pushing things through as quickly as possible, but the way to resolve the situation is to stay in the customs union.
Angela Smith
A humble bottle of fabric conditioner crosses the border of a member state four times in the process of its manufacture. Imagine how many times the components that make up a Rolls-Royce jet engine cross the border—thousands of times. On that basis, how can this country’s economy afford to even think about leaving the customs union?
Ian Murray
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If I were the Minister and she made that point to me, I would just say, “It’ll be okay. We want something that’s as close to the customs union as possible. It will be frictionless. It will only take seconds. We’ve got new technologies”, but the Government are not spelling out what those are, how they will work or how a company such as Rolls-Royce, exporting and importing goods and parts all the time, would actually operate. It seems that we have to take this on trust. Well, many of the businesses around the country need certainty, because they will be making decisions very shortly about the years ahead.
Stephen Doughty
Further to the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), Simon Hemmings, one of the chief negotiators for Rolls-Royce at its manufacturing site at Derby, told the Financial Times:
“If we are not in the customs unions there will be job losses”.
We could not have it clearer than that.
Ian Murray
I am grateful for that intervention. I said earlier that nobody voted in the EU referendum to be poorer, yet all the analysis shows that we will be. I would be delighted, if the Minister wants to intervene, if he can point to any analysis done internally, externally or otherwise—by any other Government in any country, any think-tank, any organisation, any business organisation, any individual business—saying that what the Government are offering will make the country better off. I will let him intervene now—I know he is listening; he is just pretending to ignore me. The answer is: absolutely none. The silence is deafening. Not even the producers of our microphones will make more money, because the Minister refuses even to use his to point to just one organisation that says our position will be even remotely similar once we have left the EU. The answer is clearly none. The Government are on the wrong track and gambling everything—the family silver, everything—on a no-deal scenario.
On the impact of our leaving the customs union, I want to deal with a few particular sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) mentioned the automotive sector earlier. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which is an organisation whose briefings on Budgets and Bills we, as parliamentarians, trust and which I always read with great interest—it is the knowledge in motor manufacturing —has said that going off the cliff and moving to trading on WTO rules would see a 10% tariff on vehicles and an average 4.5% tariff on car components. These figures have been repeated in the House ad nauseam. It also said it would push the cost of an average car up by £1,500. We have already heard figures recently showing new car sales and levels of new car manufacturing dropping dramatically. I think that most people considering whether to buy a new car would decide not to if they knew it was costing an additional £1,500. I appreciate that the Minister does not agree, but I am more likely to believe the SMMT’s figures than the Government at the Dispatch Box saying, “Don’t worry. Everything will be all right on the night”, without giving us any detail about how that could possibly operate in the context of no customs union and no customs arrangements.
Sir Edward Leigh
Is the hon. Gentleman happy, then, for us to be locked for all time into a situation where we can never make a free trade deal with any country, bloc or anybody outside the EU, locked into a body with a declining share of trade and locked out of free trade deals with the growing markets in Asia and America? He is happy with that, is he?
Ian Murray
I am happy with the intervention—I am delighted with it—because it allows me to say three things: first, the reason the Scotch whisky industry is doing so well is partly because of EU free trade arrangements, particularly with countries such as South Korea; secondly, we are already in 57 free trade agreements; and thirdly, the hon. Gentleman’s Government have failed wholeheartedly to start to negotiate just one free trade agreement, despite all the bluff and bluster about being at the front of the queue, about their happening easily, about our seamlessly entering into these wonderful free trade agreements all over the world.
I say also to the hon. Gentleman that his intervention completely contradicts his first intervention. If he votes against my amendment and we end up trading with WTO rules, and we end up without tariffs with the EU, we will have tariffs with no one and we will ride the waves—rule Britannia—setting up more than 57 free trade agreements with every country banging at our door to trade with us. He is not listening to his Foreign Secretary or Trade Secretary when they say this is becoming much more difficult, if he thinks that free trade agreements with more than 57 countries will just appear as low-hanging fruit from this magic money tree the Government seem always to produce.
Gareth Snell
To pick up on the point from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), of course free trade is to be welcomed, but in certain sectors, such as the ceramics industry, what we need is protection against the illegal dumping of tiles and white goods, which affects our industry and puts our jobs at risk. In some sectors, the unilateral free trade and open markets that some talk about would harm employment and make my constituents poorer.
Ian Murray
Absolutely. Illegal dumping is something that the House will have to come back to and debate at length, because it is one of the key issues around what might happen when we leave the EU and do not have that bloc to defend us. On my hon. Friend’s point about free trade, I have a great idea for how to advance free trade in this country: we could have a customs union and a single market, and that would certainly advance free trade, would it not? Or we could come out, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough wants, and end up with no free trade agreements, rather than 57.
I wanted to mention a whole list of sectors, but I will not in the interests of time. I will briefly mention two or three of the very big ones that have raised concerns. Pharmaceuticals is a key area bringing a lot of tax and corporation tax into the public purse. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has called for free trade with the EU on terms
“equivalent to those of a full member of the Customs Union”.
I would rather believe the pharmaceuticals industry, an industry that has brought so much economically—in terms of jobs and growth—than the Minister, and it says it wants free trade on terms equivalent to those of a full member of the customs union. Well, the Government will be ruling that out tonight when they pass the motion, so what will he say to the pharmaceuticals industry, which says it needs it to trade as it does now?
Ian Murray
Well, it is jobs, isn’t it? [Hon. Members: “Nine hundred jobs.”] Yes, 900 jobs, and maybe even more, if we include the knock-on effect. So the Government have just given up 900 jobs; that is the start—the tip of the iceberg. If the pharmaceuticals industry cannot get equivalence with the current customs union, how many more jobs will go in that industry? Before everybody says, “Oh, you’re just a remoaner”—
Ian Murray
Well, if being a remoaner means defending the jobs of the people of my constituency and the country, I will buy a badge—perhaps the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who is chuntering away over there, could get me a badge. I am a proud remoaner. It means caring about jobs, not giving up on them.
Kirsty Blackman
I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech, but I am slightly concerned that he keeps talking about the views of experts. We know that Government Members are not keen on the view of experts. Does he think they might listen this time?
Ian Murray
I can answer the hon. Lady’s intervention in one word: no. They clearly are not going to listen to the experts on these issues. In fact, they have sown the seed of doubt that none of us should listen to experts, and the country will be much diminished as a result.
I want to touch on two more sectors. The chemicals sector is another key driver of the UK economy. We have a great chemicals sector—one of the key chemicals sectors across the EU—and it has said that
“the best way to guarantee no adverse disruption to business and trade…and to guarantee only one adjustment before reaching a final agreement with the EU, is to seek to retain our existing membership of the Single Market and Customs Union”.
So we have the automotive industry body—the one we all trust—and the pharmaceuticals sector, and we now have the chemicals sector, yet the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box and said, “Don’t worry. We’ll put more people in place to help all this along”. I suggest that the customs union might be an answer to this particular question.
I will finish with the shipping sector—the very sector that takes the goods from these islands to the continent. The UK shipping sector has warned that the UK is facing an “absolute catastrophe” if it does not sort out a “frictionless and seamless” border at Dover and other ports. The Government keep talking about a frictionless and seamless border but cannot tell us what it means. I suggest that the best way to maintain or enhance the border—to make it frictionless and seamless and operate as a single market—is to maintain our status in the customs union.
If we were starting from scratch—with a blank sheet of paper—and seeking to determine the best way for an island nation to trade with other nations, it would be to have a customs union with those nations. Under such an agreement, we would not need to use the word “frictionless”, because there would be absolutely no friction at all, and it would be completely seamless. The best way to highlight how seamlessly and how frictionlessly a single market and a customs union can operate is to look at the markets between Scotland, Wales and England. They have a completely seamless border: they are completely free market, completely single market, completely customs-free.
I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has joined us. At the time of the referendum, he claimed, along with me—and I have said this to his colleague the hon. Member for Aberdeen South—that one of the key arguments against an independent Scotland was the lack of a border at Berwick. Now he is arguing the opposite in the context of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. That is completely contradictory, and he cannot tell us how it will be resolved. How could it not have been resolved in the Scottish context?
As a member of the customs union, the UK is party to preferential trade agreements. We want to walk away from those agreements, and make our own. It is likely that, outside the customs union, the UK would need to renegotiate many, if not all, of those agreements with those who would become third parties. It is not as easy as just rolling over those agreements, which is what the Government seem to want to do.
I am conscious of time, Mr Deputy Speaker, so let me move on a little. I want to talk about Northern Ireland and the Republic. [Interruption.] I know that the Government do not like to hear these arguments, because they have no answers to them, but I think it important for them to be highlighted in the House. If the Government can provide only limited time for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, they may as well rehearse some of the arguments today. We have until 10 pm, after all, and if the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) wants to intervene and waste time, he is more than welcome to do so.
We have already talked about the massive queues at our ports, airports and rail terminals. Now, as I have said, I want to say a little about Northern Ireland and the Republic. The Foreign Affairs Committee visited Dublin and the border on Thursday and Friday last week to consider the consequences of our leaving the European Union. Let me say again to the Minister that if he wants to name any organisation in either Northern Ireland or the Republic which thinks that Brexit will be good for the isles of Ireland, let him please do so, because I have not heard of any, and am unlikely to hear of any. In fact, the only two people I heard supporting our withdrawal from the customs union and the single market in the context of the isles of Ireland were the two Brexiteers on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Some of the words used were “catastrophic”, “irreconcilable” and “unsolvable”.
I simply cannot understand how the Minister can table motions such as this to pave the way for major Bills without having the basic answers to these questions, while using meaningless phrases such as “frictionless” and “seamless”. I am very concerned about the Belfast agreement, or Good Friday agreement, which is underpinned by the European Union, underpinned by a seamless border, and underpinned by a single market in the island of Ireland. It is almost impossible for the Government to reconcile wanting no borders, and frictionless and seamless trade, with the route that they are taking with a non-deal Brexit.
I have another suggestion, which the Minister may recognise. The way to have a seamless and frictionless border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is the customs union. That would mean that trade in goods could go across the border, unfettered, seamless, and I may even push it to frictionless, which is what the Government have been saying all along.
Our Committee travelled from Cavan—Cavan County Council hosted us on Thursday evening—to drive on to the motorway back to Dublin. It is a distance of about four and a half miles, and we were in a minibus. We crossed the border seven times just to travel a short distance. That is irreconcilable. Many people in Northern Ireland and the Republic who spoke to the Committee—and I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to read its conclusions when they are published—said that it was intellectually incoherent to argue that it was possible to have no border while requiring a border. It is not possible to have frictionless and seamless trade while having to check goods, and it is not possible to have a border at sea level while trying to ensure that the Good Friday agreement is maintained.
Former president Mary McAleese spoke to us in great depth about the passion for the Good Friday agreement. Let me say to the Minister and the Government, in all seriousness, that they ruin that agreement at their peril. It is something of which everyone should be incredibly proud. The way in which the Government are going about the Brexit negotiations, the way in which they are treating the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, the way in which they are fooling the public that it is possible to have everything and not have everything, is indeed wrong. Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator whom we all know so well now, has said to the Government, particularly in relation to the issue of Ireland, that they cannot have their cake and eat it. Something will have to give, and that is why I tabled the amendments. The Minister must think very seriously about that physical border.
Let me end by saying a little about the Labour party’s position. I think that we are right on this issue, and our position is written into the documents that we have here. We want to stay in the customs union, if possible. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, who tabled the amendments about parliamentary scrutiny. We should always press such amendments, because the Government, who talk of taking back control, are not giving control to Parliament.
All the issues relating to Ireland, to trade, to tariffs and what will happen in the future, to jobs, to borders and to tailbacks at customs can be resolved if the United Kingdom at least leaves on the table—regardless of whether we agree—the possibility of remaining members of the single market and the customs union. That would take away all these concerns. When we reach the end of the process, whether or not there is a meaningful vote in this place, the Minister and his Government will know when the jobs start leaving this country, when borders start being erected, when customs becomes more difficult, when trade becomes much more difficult, when public services become much more difficult to fund, when debt rises and deficit rises, that his Government have let the people down by not telling them the truth about the consequences of leaving the single market and the customs union.
That is why I tabled my amendments, and I hope that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Lobbies.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who spoke, at considerable length, of his conviction that the customs union is the way forward. He has always spoken with great clarity and certainty, although I suggest that he is more compelling in his usual manner as Tigger than as the Eeyore whom we saw tonight. I would also say that the difficulty of assuming that business is monolithic, and always speaks with one voice, is that it does not. There are businesses in my constituency with which I deal as a trade envoy that are concerned about the future, but there are others that are relaxed. Both those views will depend, ultimately, on what sort of arrangement we reach on trade and customs, and on what terms.
That brings us to this preparatory Bill. As the Minister has explained, it is fundamentally nothing other than necessary preparation for when we leave the European Union. It is a framework, not a position on a preferred type of future customs relationship. It allows for either of the Government’s options: a streamlined system that is, as far as I can see, identical to the current one; and a new customs partnership of which I am sure we shall hear more when the Bill is published. This preparatory work will be even more important in the sad event of future arrangements not being agreed with the EU.
The Minister confirmed that HMRC arrangements at our roll-on/roll-off ports will be in place in January 2019, ready to deal with worst-case scenarios. I believe that there is an important political point behind that, which Members who, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, would much prefer to stay in the customs union need to consider very carefully. There are some who believe that leaving the EU without a future deal or any implementation period would be a walk in the park, whereas others believe that it would be impossible to operate our ports, and, perhaps, much of our trade, and that it would therefore be a disaster to leave the customs union at all.
However, many of us who have always thought that both the UK and the EU would benefit hugely from a strong customs partnership for the future, and what Michel Barnier calls a “new partnership” in general, believe that this preparatory Bill is essential to that. It is absolutely vital that the EU does not overplay its strong hand at this delicate stage of negotiations, for if it decides that negotiations on citizens’ rights, Ireland and finance have made insufficient progress to allow us to move on to debating an implementation period, future trade and other partnerships, there is a real danger that the momentum will move behind those who believe not only that no deal is possible, but that it is likely or even desirable, and that we need to prepare for that situation above all else.
Richard Graham
I am sorry, but I will not give way.
For those of us who want the negotiations to succeed and a new partnership, it is therefore incredibly important that our partners in the EU encourage us to build momentum for that by moving to detailed talks on future trade and customs arrangements as soon as possible. For now, this is simply an enabling Bill of changes, allowing for future UK tariffs, VAT levels, goods classifications and so on. As the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said, it is both practical and necessary. Today’s amendments close off the options and it would be sensible to avoid them.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), a fellow remainer, and I hope that remainers on the Conservative Benches will be a little more outspoken about their concerns.
Richard Graham
For clarification, I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he is following a pragmatist.
Tom Brake
If I am indeed following a pragmatist, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to what is being said by many economic sectors, and perhaps read carefully the 58 sectoral reports once they are published, and come to the very pragmatic conclusion that he, as a pragmatist, will want to start to be more outspoken about the Government’s agenda of taking us over the cliff.
Members have suggested that the UK needs to leave the EU to be able to trade, but that is clearly not true. Many European countries are just much more successful than us at trading with other countries, including Germany, France and Italy. They do so within the EU, so there is no reason why we could not do so more effectively than at present. If we are unable to trade while we are part of the EU, I wonder why previous Prime Ministers, particularly David Cameron, spent so much time and effort sending trade delegations to various countries around the world to drum up trade. Was that a completely pointless exercise? Was that just about having 10-course banquets in Beijing, or was it because we can do a lot to boost trade while we are in the European Union? I think it was the latter, rather than a desire to have big dinners courtesy of foreign Governments. Of course the UK is in a position to trade—and, perhaps, to do so more effectively—with other countries while we are members of the EU.
It is nice, as a Liberal Democrat, to be able to make a speech that is longer than three minutes, so I might take full advantage of that in the couple of hours that remain for me to make a contribution, before the Front Benchers make their response. First, I want to focus on the issue of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Frankly, Opposition Members have had enough of listening to Ministers’ platitudes about how they will sort out the problem that is the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. We do not want to hear about “frictionless” any more, or about blue-skies solutions that do not yet exist. What we want to hear from Ministers is the solution to this problem, because if the Irish Prime Minister was asking on Friday for a written guarantee from the UK Government that there would be no border controls, that was because he is worried and because he has heard nothing from our Government to explain how we will be able to leave the customs union, yet have no border and no border controls between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Peter Grant
Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that if the Government were to have a change of heart and agreed to ask to remain in the single market, that would take out two of the three stumbling-blocks? The rights of EU and UK citizens would be solved immediately, and the Irish question, although not completely answered, would be made a lot more soluble. We would then be left with the financial settlement as the only stumbling block to getting on to talk about trade deals, which is what we want to do.
Tom Brake
I entirely agree. Like other hon. Members, I am perplexed as to why the Government ruled out several obvious solutions to the dilemmas they face from the outset.
I am sure that a number of Members in the Chamber will have visited Northern Ireland. When I did so, which was about five weeks ago, one of the communities I visited was Forkhill in South Armagh, which was very badly affected during the troubles. A garrison of 3,000 soldiers in that town was responsible for the safety of approximately 24,000 people. The people of Forkhill reckon that when the garrison was there, it was the most militarised place in western Europe, and they are worried about returning to the troubles they experienced there in the ’70s, ’80s and so on. People were placing improvised explosive devices in culverts, under roads and on the approach roads to the border, and the residents of Forkhill are worried that there will be no means to control safely the 275 border points between Ireland and Northern Ireland. If the proposal is that part of the solution will be to conduct ad hoc checks at separate border points, or at some distance from the border, those people are worried that the British customs officer, the British police officer, or perhaps the British soldier will become a target.
All we have heard from a succession of Ministers is dismissive comments. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union dismisses any concerns expressed about the difficulties that could arise at the border. We need reassurances from Ministers, not the dismissive comments they are making.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
As far as I can gather, the Government’s policy is that they are definitely not going to have a hard border and they are definitely leaving the customs union. That could be very good for the community that the right hon. Gentleman visited, because smuggling was a very profitable source of income in the past for a large number of inhabitants on both sides of the Irish border. It seems to me that so long as the Government maintain their totally contradictory pose, smuggling will once more come back to the border in a big way.
Tom Brake
Indeed, and it might be a growth industry. When I was in Northern Ireland, the people who were taking me around pointed out a number of large homes and suggested that they might have been acquired through not entirely legitimate means. The Government might be reopening that way of doing business. We also know what has happened with regard to common agricultural policy payments, and with cattle or fuel being transferred from one side of the border to the other within a shed. That long-standing problem has the potential to become an even greater one, courtesy of what the Government propose.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
If we are outside the customs union, it suggests that there will be a hard border, but if we follow the Government’s logic that that will somehow be mitigated and we will have an open, frictionless border, surely the border will simply have to be around Great Britain—it will have to be at the Scottish and Welsh ports. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if Northern Ireland is treated separately, that will cause a constitutional problem?
Tom Brake
Absolutely, and that is why I believe that the question of Ireland and Northern Ireland is the most challenging of the three. The Government could and should have resolved the question of EU citizens 15 months ago by simply saying to them, “You have the right to remain.” The settlement bill is clearly very difficult politically for the Conservative party, because many of its Members are on record as saying, “We won’t give the EU a single penny; in fact, they owe us loads of money,” so they now have a difficult political position to adopt if they say that they support a payment. We do not know how much that will be, but one figure that has been mentioned is £40 billion, and an interesting article in The Sunday Times a couple of weeks ago, which seemed to be flying a kite, referred to £53 billion. Although that question could be resolved at the cost of some political pain, no one has put forward any solution to the issue of Ireland and Northern Ireland that does not involve some sort of control. That might be ad hoc control, and it might not be directly at the border, but some sort of control will be required.
Richard Graham
The right hon. Gentleman has touched briefly on citizens’ rights. Given that both sides have said that that is their absolute top priority, can he explain why the European Union turned down our proposal to treat citizens’ rights first, on their own, so that the matter could have been agreed in perpetuity, regardless of what happened to anything else?
Tom Brake
That might be an issue on which we agree. If we are moving towards a no-deal scenario, there is an overwhelming case for parking the issue of EU and UK citizens’ rights and resolving it, because it is a question of humanity and giving safety and security to the 3 million EU citizens here and the 1.2 million UK citizens in the EU.
The border between Ireland and Northern Ireland has 275 crossings. If there is to be some sort of control, will it be at each and every one of those crossings? Presumably not; otherwise, the number of people that HMRC is going to have to recruit would be much greater than the 3,000 to 5,000 it already needs.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a good point about border crossings. I have spoken to someone who has the border going through their kitchen. Does he agree that that would pose a practical difficulty for them, should they wish to get to their cake and eat it?
Tom Brake
Presumably they would have no difficulty in smuggling their cake from one side of the border to the other.
If some of those 275 border posts were closed down, many issues would ensue. I have heard examples of graveyards with entrances on both sides of the border, and of children going to school and people going to work across the border from where they live. If border crossings were closed, as happened during the troubles, that would be a major issue for Ireland and Northern Ireland. If I were to speak for the next couple of hours, that might give the Minister time to work out what the solution is. Clearly there is not one yet, but perhaps that would enable him to go away and find one.
Ian Murray
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is making these arguments about the Irish border. This is not just about a physical border; it is about what this says symbolically. There has been no border on the island of Ireland since the troubles, and the symbolism of reinstating one should be avoided at all costs.
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman is right, and I thank him for pointing me in that direction. Clearly, there would be substantial economic problems associated with a border, but the fundamental problem would be the message that would be sent out to those who want to cause trouble, if there were to be a British presence on the border. That would be a step in the wrong direction in terms of a united Ireland and it could give such people a reason to resume the troubles. That is the major risk, which is probably why the Government and the European Union are both saying that progress is being made. No one wants to admit that this remains a problem without a solution, because of its potential to generate trouble.
I have referred in interventions to the port of Dover. Many Members will have visited it, as I have done, and I certainly recommend it. The first thing to know about the port of Dover is that it is not really a port. The port authorities clearly state that it is in fact a bridge. I have stood in the control tower and watched the trucks flowing virtually seamlessly—that is an interesting word; perhaps the Government could look at how things operate there—on to the ferries. They slow down and go into channels and if they are lucky they can drive straight on to the ferry while the trucks coming into the UK are being unloaded from the lower deck. There is nothing to stop those trucks getting on to those ferries. They are not booked on to a specific ferry; they just turn up and drive on to whichever one is there. The only checks that the UK is carrying out on trucks coming into this country are related to smuggling, and they are done on the basis of intelligence, rather than, for example, on the basis of checking one truck in every 100. That is why the system flows smoothly.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Has he heard the often-quoted statistic that if each truck were held back by just two minutes, we would have a 17-mile tailback? Is he as pessimistic as I am in thinking that two minutes is a remarkably short period of time to stop each truck, even simply to ask where it is going?
Tom Brake
Absolutely; I do have those concerns. It is worth knowing that when the 17-mile tailback occurred two years ago, it was the result of just two French border officers not turning up for their shift. The 20 sq km lorry park—whose construction has now been kicked into the long grass because of the judicial review—would accommodate 3,500 lorries. However, 10,000 lorries go through that port each day, so a lorry park that would accommodate 3,500 lorries will not do very much if there is severe disruption at the port. That is why one of the options the port is considering is to create lorry parks all over the country. In the event of a delay, the port could text drivers in, for example, Leeds or Edinburgh to say, “Sorry, we’ve got a bit of a problem at Dover. Don’t bother coming, because if you do, the town will collapse. Just stay in that lorry park and we’ll tell you when it’s safe to come down.”
Richard Graham
We have heard much of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying before. No doubt he will have heard the mayor of Calais and the head of the port there saying that no deal would be a catastrophe for them as well. Does that not encourage him to believe that good sense should prevail, and that we can arrive at an arrangement that suits those on both sides of the channel equally well?
Tom Brake
Like the hon. Gentleman, I would like good sense to prevail. However, when the Government seem to be planning for no deal, there does not seem to be much good sense available. I shall say a bit more about Calais in a moment.
As I was saying, Dover has what is effectively a bridge between Dover and Calais. The Minister was very frank when I intervened on him earlier, saying that any level of disruption and delay in the processing would have a significant impact. That is true, and that is what he will have heard from the port of Dover. Unfortunately, nothing that the Government have come forward with as a solution is likely to provide the answer.
I want to touch briefly on the issue of Calais. We have said a great deal about the need for the UK to be prepared in terms of our customs systems, of what we are going to do on the border and the approaches to the border, and of how we are going to put in place the 3,000 to 5,000 members of staff needed at HMRC and the 1,000-plus at the Home Office. The same will be true at Calais, and at the ports in Belgium and Holland. We could have fine-tuned everything at our end, but if they do not do the work on their side, there could still be a problem with ferries getting to Calais, for example, and having nowhere to discharge their trucks. So unless everyone else is just as prepared as we are, we could still be in an almighty jam. Before I was elected, I used to work in the IT industry. If anyone thinks that we can have an IT solution in place that will cope with a no-deal scenario in March 2019, they really need to have their head examined, because achieving that is an impossibility.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I am not going to take full advantage of the two hours available to me, and I would like to conclude by commenting on the Government’s apparent solutions to these customs problems. We know that they are preparing a contingency plan for no deal. I have not seen anyone on the Government Benches nodding their head and saying, “No deal is a fantastic thing and we really need to press for that”, so this is their opportunity to intervene and say that no deal would in fact be fantastic for the UK. No one is doing that, however, so I have to assume that nobody on that side wants that, even though the Government are apparently planning for it.
We are therefore left with two options. The first is a highly streamlined customs arrangement. Now, reading between the lines, I am absolutely certain that a “highly streamlined customs arrangement” means a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. It does not mean “frictionless” or some high-tech, blue-sky-thinking solution that does away with the need to check the contents of trucks. One of the Government’s solutions therefore involves a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and all the associated complications.
The other solution is a new customs partnership. I must say that the customs Bill paper makes for entertaining reading, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will have read what it means. It will be
“an innovative and untested approach”—
that reassures me—
“that would need to be discussed further with the EU and businesses”.
The customs Bill paper was published in October, so there is not much time left to discuss that arrangement with the EU and businesses. The paper also states that
“the Customs Bill could not be drafted to specifically provide for the implementation of this outcome. Should negotiations conclude that future customs arrangements with the EU should follow this model, further domestic primary legislation may be required.”
As for how many times a statement can be caveated in one paragraph, I think that is probably five or six, so good luck to the Government if they plan to roll out that particular solution—the blue-sky solution that no one has thought of, has programmed for or has any hope of implementing any time soon.
It will be to the relief of Government Members that I will conclude at this point. Nothing we have heard so far from Ministers gives me or anyone on the Opposition Benches any reassurance that in March 2019—or even at the end of a two-year transition period—the Government will be in a position to have a smooth customs arrangement that prevails on the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland or a smooth, seamless, frictionless border, or bridge, at Dover and Calais.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill is important, because customs matters have been governed by EU law for many decades, and Britain needs its own primary legislation on customs. A good Government need to be prepared for all eventualities, but while the Bill would provide customs legislation in a no-deal scenario, I am glad that the UK is instead looking for more bespoke solutions. We should not just cut and paste the customs procedures that we use for products from far-flung parts of the globe on to our trade with Europe. Goods that travel long distances can have their customs paperwork cleared while they are on the sea or in the air, which would be much more challenging for our cross-channel activities, let alone those between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Vicky Ford
No.
Furthermore, EU-UK trade covers vast quantities of goods. Honda estimates that it alone transports 2 million parts across the channel every day. Additional paperwork or delays add costs and hit competitiveness, and companies—both UK and EU companies—need time to adjust to new procedures. We need a specific deal. We need a transitional period.
The legislation covers customs matters, but it does not cover many other activities that happen at our ports and airports, such as tackling counterfeit goods, detecting firearms or plant and animal health checks. The latter—the so-called sanitary and phytosanitary checks—will be a particularly sensitive element of any future trade deal, and we here should not underestimate how seriously our counterparts in Europe take the issue of counterfeit goods, not just fake handbags, but dangerous electrical goods, fake chemicals and fake medicines. Britain and Europe are stronger when we face those sorts of challenges together. Our trading partners will want to ensure not only that we have custom laws and processes, but other procedures and the ability and commitment to police them properly.
Mr Barnier said today that if the UK wants an ambitious partnership, we must also find common ground on food standards and product standards and on many other areas. I say back to Mr Barnier that the vast majority of people in this country want that amicable partnership and a close trading relationship, so please—I know that this is difficult as there is no Government in Germany—let us move on to the detailed negotiations, so that we can find that common ground together.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I think that the Minister said at the outset that it is the Government’s policy to leave the customs union. It was not on the ballot paper in the referendum; it is a policy choice that the Government are taking. It is therefore the Government’s policy to exit the most efficient, tariff-free, frictionless, free trade area anywhere in the world, and what we will end up with afterwards is therefore bound to be inferior—possibly very much inferior—to the basic free trade arrangements enjoyed by most countries around the world. We could find ourselves at the mercy of basic WTO tariff arrangements, so the Bill that we are paving the way for with this Ways and Means motion comes at a crucial juncture.
I thought it was unfair that many Government Members referred to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) as Eeyore-ish. He is actually quite a positive character, who wants to do the best for trade, for business and for this country. In fact, if anything is negative, it is the legislation that the Government are proposing. The Minister was the harbinger of doom, because the Bill plans for a no-deal scenario. This set of legislative changes paves the way for circumstances in which the UK may be imposing tariffs on our nearest trading neighbours and vice versa. I cannot think of something more depressing, defeatist or premature, especially given that we have not even had the negotiations yet. In fact, I cannot think of anything much more aggressive towards the negotiation settlement that we are trying to get than the suggestion that we are going to put into legislation the ability for us to raise significant tariffs with our nearest trading partners, with whom 50% of our trade takes place.
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman is talking rationally, as always. The reason why I felt that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) was being rather Eeyore-ish is that he underestimates the impact on Scottish whisky, about which he talked quite a lot, of the far east. He needs to go and see the Johnnie Walker shops in Shanghai and Beijing. He needs to look closely at Whyte & Mackay—a failing Glaswegian whisky manufacturer now saved and re-energised by a buyer from the Philippines—to understand that the future of Scottish whisky lies as much in Asia and other far-flung places as it does in Europe.
Mr Leslie
That may be so, but this is not an either/or situation. This is not about selling a fantastic Scottish whisky product to China or to Europe; we should be doing both. German car manufacturers and French food producers are trading exceptionally well with the far east, while remaining a member of the customs union and of the single market. My quibble with Ministers and some Government Members is that they give an impression that this is a binary, either/or arrangement. They say, “Oh well, we can ditch our trading relationships and partnerships with our nearest neighbours, because we might eventually be able to do something with China, India, Australia or Brazil,” but we should be able to do all those things. We can do all those things simultaneously, while remaining part of the greatest free trade area of any set of nations anywhere in the world, but we are about to throw that overboard for no reason resulting from the referendum, but due to Government policy.
We all obviously hope that we can salvage that relationship within the single market and the customs unions in a short transitional period, but that will take quite a lot of negotiation and depends on several different things. It is a shame that the German Government are in an unstable situation, because I suspect that that will make things far harder. I did not vote in favour of triggering article 50 because I thought that doing so was premature. I thought we should have secured a better timetable than the one we ended up with, because of course the clock ticks down. We could end up with unforeseen diplomatic wrinkles in the process and be backed into a corner, possibly finding ourselves with an inferior transition arrangement and a snap general election that nobody anticipates, least of all Conservative Members.
Let us bear in mind what this Ways and Means motion might presage for tariffs on our different imports and exports. [Interruption.] I know the Whip, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and the Minister are listening very carefully. A 7% tariff would be introduced on ceramic products. On cars, the tariff would be 10%.
Gareth Snell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising ceramics. He will know that the best ceramics in the world are made in this country, but the Ways and Means motion, which talks so much about how we will trade around the world, talks very little about the protections that can be afforded to the ceramics industry, so that it remains one of the best producers in the world. Is he, like me, worried that with this motion the ministerial team appears to be completely devoid of any intention to help this country’s manufacturing bases?
Mr Leslie
That, of course, is exactly why the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South should be accepted and embraced by Ministers and by Labour party Front Benchers. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) will reflect on that. We should fear such tariffs, because they might not just be one-offs. Products can sometimes cross a border multiple times and accumulate tariffs.
There would be an 11% tariff on footwear, 20% on beverages, potentially 45% on cereals and 50% on meat products. Those are serious impediments to some major industries in the United Kingdom. We can prepare for a tariff regime, but as stated in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South, we do not wish to impose tariffs on goods traded with our nearest neighbours in the European Union. In essence, we want to replicate the customs union arrangement we currently have.
I am delighted with the amendments, and I want to ensure the House has the opportunity to voice support for them this evening. It is a shame that, in Committee on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the amendments on the customs union have not been selected, so we will not get a chance to vote on customs union issues in Committee. In many ways, we now have an opportunity to do so.
Tom Brake
I also want the House to have the opportunity to vote on the amendments today, and I look forward to it. Has the hon. Gentleman been following the question of local content in cars? The UK could, of course, be in a very difficult position whereby the local content of the cars we manufacture would not be high enough to allow us to sell any of them abroad.
Mr Leslie
The question of rules of origin, of course, is the other factor in the debate about the customs union, because it is not just a question of tariffs; it is about what proportion of these products originates from within the United Kingdom and what proportion relates to components or other parts that may have come from the inventory or warehouse of the whole European Union. Currently, under just-in-time arrangements for warehousing, a car manufacturer located in the UK can avoid the need to stack up expensive inventory. It can assume that goods and parts are able to be transmitted within a matter of hours or days, which is what we risk losing if we end up with such tariffs and impediments at our borders.
Mr Leslie
Some solutions have to be forthcoming. I have high hopes for the Minister’s winding-up speech. I do not know whether he is able to say anything about that suggestion, or about any other part of the negotiation.
Let us remember that the customs union currently allows a vehicle manufacturer to sell a car in Berlin as easily as in Birmingham or Bradford. That is the nature of the market we currently have, but it could end if we impose tariffs at the levels to which the motion paves the way.
Earlier, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) raised the border with Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South talked about how the Belfast agreement is one area where that question is crystallised most of all. I cannot think of any hon. Member who would say that there should be a hard border between Britain and Northern Ireland. If we are not to have such a border, there should not be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Of course there cannot be a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and the European Union, but, somehow, we are talking about instituting a hard border between the European Union and the United Kingdom. The logic of that, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said earlier, completely falls to pieces. We are still waiting for that blue-sky solution, the kite flown in the recent trade White Paper. The Irish Government are now asking for written proposals from UK Ministers on those points.
These are serious questions, and a lot of it roots back to whether we will find ourselves voluntarily opting for circumstances in which we want tariffs, hard borders and rules of origin checks to be put in place. By supporting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South, the House has a way to signify that, actually, we choose a different course by choosing to retain as much as possible of the frictionless free trade and tariff-free area that we currently enjoy in the customs union.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Prime Minister has emphasised that there will be no “physical infrastructure” on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in evidence to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, ruled out having cameras on the border. If we are not to have cameras or physical infrastructure on a frictionless, seamless border, how exactly does the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) foresee the Government being able to collect customs duties on imports between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?
Mr Leslie
There is absolutely no logic to the Government’s position right now. Again, none of this was on the ballot paper in the referendum. That is important to remember because people are assuming that, somehow, this is a natural consequence of the referendum result. It is not. We could choose to negotiate to remain in the customs union. By doing so, of course, not only would we have that fantastic free trade access for 50% of our imports and exports, as at present, but we would retain our access to the 57 free trade agreements with non-EU countries that we have by virtue of our membership of the European Union and customs union—that is another 12% of our trade. Added together, knocking on two thirds of our trade is, in many ways, dependent on our current relationship with the customs union.
I look forward to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East from the Labour Front Bench. I say to her and to our Front-Bench colleagues that we cannot just sweep away the question of the customs union. It is positive that the Labour party is saying we want to stay in the customs union for the transition period, and it is positive we are saying that, after Brexit, we want to get as close as we can to a customs union, but I urge Labour Front Benchers to go that little bit further.
It is nonsense to suggest that there is such a thing as a jobs-first Brexit, which is as nonsensical as saying that we could have a books-first library closure. It just does not work. If we end up going down this route, exiting the customs union and the single market, jobs will be lost. We have already seen 900 jobs go in the European Medicines Agency today from the UK to Amsterdam; we are talking about highly skilled, highly valuable activity. I am appalled that we are in that circumstance, and it is just the tip of the iceberg. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the excellent amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I rise not only to support those excellent amendments, but to make it clear that I shall be voting for them. That is because I made it clear in the run-up to the general election in June that I would continue to make the case for the customs union, the single market and the positive benefits of immigration to everybody in Broxtowe. Having been returned to this place, admittedly with a diminished majority but with an extra 1,800 votes, I take the firm view that to be true to the words I have said and to my conscience, I am going to vote for these amendments. It is an absolute pleasure to follow some of the excellent contributions we have heard tonight, notably those of the hon. Members for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and somewhere equally pleasant—
Anna Soubry
Exactly—somewhere equally pleasant.
The pleasure I have in speaking in this debate is primarily this: the fact that we are actually having a debate and, moreover, we are actually having a vote. We are providing this House and this place at last with an opportunity to have a real and meaningful say in the future of our country, which has been denied within this place ever since 23 June 2016. If only the Government had at that time—I can understand why in many ways they could not—looked to build a consensus and to find what elements united us far more than had divided us during the EU referendum debate, we would not be in the unholy mess we are undoubtedly in today. As this Brexit reality or nightmare begins to dawn increasingly on the people of this country, we see that this scenario of either deal or no deal is not the real option facing the British people. We are being painted the idea of the hard Brexit as something that we should prepare for, and although it is right of the Government to be responsible and examine that, the reality is that we are more likely than not to not get a deal.
Not only are all the things the Prime Minister promised and said she did not want—no deal—likely, but in quarters of this place some people are positively urging and welcoming that. I find it utterly perverse and bizarre that my party, the party that has always been so proud to be the party of business, is increasingly being seen as the party that no longer represents business in this country. Let us be absolutely clear: the overwhelming majority of businesses, not just in Broxtowe, but the length and breadth of this country, do not want a hard Brexit. This is not just a choice between a hard Brexit—that no deal—or a bad deal, because there is a third option, one that has not even been debated and until tonight has certainly not been voted on. I refer to this third way; tonight we are talking about the customs union, but in my view this also includes the single market.
I am not going to repeat the excellent arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, but I absolutely endorse all the arguments he made and the interventions that he took from other hon. Members who also see the value of the customs union. It delivers what I think the British people want. Overwhelmingly the majority of people in this country are thoroughly cheesed off with the whole darned thing; they are fed up with Brexit. They are fed up with the arguments and the squabbling. I am going to be blunt about it: they are getting fed up with a Government who have still not worked out what their policy is for the transitional deal or for the final deal. Some might say that that is shameful, given all the time that has progressed since we jumped, as I fear we did, into triggering article 50. Some of us—my goodness, we know how we got all the attacks for having said this— did caution the Government, saying, “Please don’t trigger article 50 until at least the Germans have had their elections and that stable Government have been put in place.” I get no pleasure in saying how right we were to put that caution forward. The British people are looking at all of this, they are fed up to the back teeth with it and they want us to get on with it. I do not demur from it—we should get on with it—but not in the way that a small ideological group of people, mainly in my own party, I am sorry to say, are now urging the Government to do: by leaping off the cliff and getting no deal.
Ian Murray
When the history books are written about this period of time, the right hon. Lady’s name will be prominent for trying to pull her own Government back from the brink, so we all appreciate the work she is doing on this. We have heard all the arguments tonight, and I, too, am delighted we are debating the customs union. The Government are suggesting a frictionless and seamless border and frictionless and seamless customs arrangements, so does she agree that the best thing they could do to deliver that is to stay in the darned thing?
Anna Soubry
I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more. That is what the people need to understand now: there is this third option. There is this other way of getting a Brexit. We would be out of the European Union, so we would have satisfied the 52% of voters on that, but we would deliver what everybody wants, which is the best possible Brexit that is in the interests of everybody in this country, with the economy, jobs and prosperity right at its heart. This would solve the problem that Northern Ireland faces and that Ireland faces, because we would keep the customs union.
Lady Hermon
I am deeply disquieted by the fact that prominent Conservative Members are seemingly in favour of no deal as we leave the EU, because today’s Belfast Telegraph carries a report saying that republican organisations in Northern Ireland and Sinn Féin are hoping that there is a hard Brexit. They are exploiting that idea to then campaign for a border poll to try to rip Northern Ireland away from the rest of the UK. That is extremely concerning to me, as a Unionist.
Anna Soubry
I listen to the wise words of the hon. Lady, as she, more than many, knows exactly the serious consequences of getting this wrong. It is not just about trade and the economy in Northern Ireland; it is also about the politics. I take the point that there is a huge danger of abandoning the customs union and going for some ghastly hard border, which plays right into the hands of Sinn Féin, the IRA and all the rest of them.
I am not going to speak for much longer, because I agree with so much of what has been said by the three Members I particularly picked out and by the hon. Lady. I am old enough to remember my father having a car and when we asked what had happened with it and why did we not have it, we were told, “It is down in the garage and we are waiting for a part. It hasn’t cleared customs.” Some other Members will remember that, too. The terrible problem with much of this debate is that so many people are so much younger than I am and they have never experienced this. People like me are old enough to remember the days of having to have our suitcases opened at customs control, but this is lost on huge swathes of our population. Yet here we are actually beginning to plan for a return to those bad, dark days when we were the sick man of Europe.
So we need to stay in the customs union for the sake of our economy and because it will deliver what the people want: we will get on with this and we will make progress. We can take it, because it is there on a shelf and we can take it off the shelf. We may have to tweak it here and there but it will get us on and it will deliver Brexit, and it will ensure that we can then look at these huge other domestic problems we face.
I was going to say something else, but I have no doubt completely forgotten it. It matters not, though, because these are important matters. [Interruption.] Ah, I know what it is. As I said the other day, history will record the profound irony, which cannot be right, that the overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this place agree that we should be in the customs union and the single market. The only reason why that is not even on the table anymore—this is an uncomfortable truth—is because, I fear, my party is in hock to 30 to 35 hard, ideologically driven Brexiteers. The British people will not thank my party unless we stand up for business and for the economy. We must deliver Brexit but also make sure that we deliver for the British people.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Lady talks about the extremists in her own party; does she share my horror that a former Minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union is planning to make a speech tomorrow morning in which he actually advocates our dropping off the cliff and going on to WTO rules, and in which he will tell the Prime Minister that she needs to take forward a no-deal Brexit? What an absurdity!
Anna Soubry
I do not like to speculate or comment on things about which I do not know, but that is terribly interesting.
Finally, I just need to ask: why are we leaving the customs union? Apparently, we are leaving the customs union so that we can make trade deals with other countries. It is the stuff of complete fantasy. As the hon. Member for Nottingham East rightly pointed out, we already have this fantastic arrangement: the customs union and single market, the biggest in the whole world. We are turning away from that, causing this dreadful self-inflicted wound, looking into other places and dreaming of deals that will never be done. Was there ever a better example than if we look to America? Look at Bombardier, and look at the most protectionist, anti-free-trade President that that nation has probably ever seen. That is the reality. There is no wonderland ahead of us; what there is ahead is real economic damage to our country unless we stay in the customs union. That is why I shall vote for the amendments tonight.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who spoke with her trademark passion in this debate on one of the most important issues to arise from the Brexit referendum vote. I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) in tabling the amendments that have been selected. If he presses them to a Division, my colleagues and I will support him.
The British Government are intent on pursuing a Brexit strategy that does not put the economy first. In her Lancaster House speech at the beginning of the year, the Prime Minister stated clearly that the British Government intend to leave both the single market and the customs union. Like many Members who have spoken today, I could not understand for a second why the British Government decided at that stage to close off both those options, which was why I could not bring myself to vote subsequently for the triggering of article 50. No outline was given of what the British Government were going to put in place to replace two key cornerstones of our economic policy framework that have existed over the past 40 years.
Jonathan Edwards
That is a valid point. When we begin to consider the customs Bill and the Trade Bill, answers will have to be forthcoming, because the House and people throughout the UK are becoming increasingly restless. We need answers from the Government about what they propose to put in place instead of those frameworks, rather than the empty platitudes we have heard since the referendum result.
The customs union is of course the largest and most lucrative trading bloc in the world. It gives us unhindered access to nearly half a billion of the wealthiest consumers in the world. It also acts as a protective measure against cheaper and lower-standard goods, thereby safeguarding our domestic producers, especially food producers, who are a vital part of the Welsh economy. Of course, the UK Government have not negotiated a trade deal since the UK joined the customs union because doing so has been a European competence. There is little expertise in the British civil service to deal with the task at hand.
In the previous Parliament, I visited Washington DC with a parliamentary delegation to scrutinise the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal between the EU and the US. When, over a pint one evening, I asked a British Government official there how many people were on his team, he said, “Well, it’s just me.” That indicates the difficulty of getting the British civil service ready to deal with the challenges we will face with respect to our trade policy. Recent press reports about the staff and expertise required in the Department for International Trade do not give me much grounds for confidence. A huge amount of work needs to be done to get the British state ready for the shark-infested waters of modern international trade negotiations, because they are hugely complex.
I do not profess to be an international trade expert in any shape or form, but it seems clear to me that large trading blocs have far more power in negotiations than smaller ones. As I said earlier, the EU customs union is the world’s most powerful trading bloc, and it obviously helps to promote and protect our interests and those of its producers during negotiations. As we move forward, there are big questions as to whether the UK will, as an insular trading bloc, be able to perform the same tasks to the same ability.
During the aforementioned visit to Washington, we had several difficult meetings with representatives from US sectors, who all bemoaned EU intransigence. Nevertheless, the reality was that they had no option but to accept it, because the EU customs union was such a large trading bloc. I remember vividly one meeting with people from the food sector who were impressing on us the need to open up EU markets to the chlorinated chicken and hormone beef that they have in the US, as well as, of course, genetically modified products, but they knew that there was no way they would get that past EU negotiators. I wonder whether UK negotiators will be able to withstand such pressure when they start trade negotiations with the US—I doubt it very much.
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that a couple of weeks ago I tabled a parliamentary question to ask how many people in the Department for International Trade had successfully completed a trade negotiation. The answer I got was the newly appointed Crawford Falconer, so there is apparently one person in the Department who has completed a trade negotiation.
Jonathan Edwards
That is grounds for huge concern, because these trade negotiators will be up against expert teams that have been carrying out such negotiations for many years, and this is not just about the EU deal. If it is the British Government’s intention, as one of their first options, to take on the United States in trade negotiations, I would advise them to take the advice of the experts who told the Exiting the European Union Committee in the previous Parliament that the UK should perhaps look to smaller countries for their initial trade negotiations, rather than something as powerful as the US trade lobby.
The EU customs union’s numerous existing international trade deals have already have been mentioned. Those deals cover more than 50 countries, and several other trade negotiations are ongoing. A third of all EU members’ trade outside the EU is with those countries. When the Department for International Trade was set up and the Secretary of State for International Trade answered oral questions for the first time, the first question I asked him was what would happen to all the trade deals that we already enjoy around the world. His view was that they were going to be renegotiated, seamlessly, but I fear that that showed extreme naivety on his part. Why would those countries agree to the same terms and conditions with a far smaller trading bloc, which is what the UK will be, as they agreed with the EU customs union? Surely they will want to renegotiate so that they look after and promote their own interests, rather than just accept what is on the table.
The British Government’s intended policy of leaving the single market and customs union is already having a huge impact on Welsh people’s standard of living. The Centre for Economic Performance has calculated that Brexit has already cost the average worker in Wales £448 annually, with its effect on wages and the higher cost of living disproportionately affecting people in Wales—and that is before we actually leave the EU.
With 90% of Welsh food exports destined for the EU customs union, a reckless Brexit could be disastrous for the communities I serve in rural Carmarthenshire. In a recent meeting with sheep farmers, I was amazed to find out that 50% of their produce was sold domestically, with 50% sold in Europe. Domestic markets will not be able to fill those gaps if we lose unfettered access to European markets.
It is also worth concentrating on some of the tariffs associated with food products. The average tariff on dairy products is 38%. For meat products, we are talking in the region of 58% to 70%. That would clearly make our food products destined for the EU completely uncompetitive. Farmers are preparing for 2019-20 at the moment, so they need answers now. They cannot wait for a protracted trade negotiation.
I also want to concentrate on the impact of leaving the customs union on the border between the British state and the Republic of Ireland. Much has already been said on this matter tonight and it has also had considerable media coverage, not least because the border on the island of Ireland is one of the three sticking points that need to be resolved before we reach first base in our negotiations with the European Union. Despite the fact that both sides have focused on this matter since the beginning of the negotiations, we are no nearer a solution. Indeed, press reports over the weekend seemed to indicate that things are getting even more difficult.
The British Government have miscalculated the resolve of the European Union. The EU’s overriding priority in these negotiations is maintaining the integrity of the single market and the customs union. Therefore, in choosing to leave those frameworks, the UK will become a third country—in other words, a competitor. In those circumstances, we will not get a “have your cake and eat it” solution. As the right hon. Member for Broxtowe said, the British Government are living in fantasy land. There will be no such thing as a special partnership. If we are not part of the single market or the customs union, the best thing that we can hope for is a free trade agreement similar to that of Canada. A welcome development in recent months is the fact that both Labour and the Government have agreed that a transition is a good idea, but the key question is what happens at the end of the two years.
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reality is that we will not get a great deal because the EU does not want to give us a great deal? If it gives us a great deal, it would have to give one to a whole load of other people who might decide to leave the European Union. Although I am not saying that it wants to punish us—I do not think that it does—it does have a responsibility to keep the European Union together.
Jonathan Edwards
The right hon. Lady captures my sentiments exactly. By deciding to leave the single market or the customs union, we effectively become a competitor —a third country. On that basis, the overriding priority of the European Union is to protect its interests. A lot of the problems that are arising in our negotiations, as we heard from the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), could be dealt with if we said that we wanted to stay in the single market and the customs union.
The transition period is a welcome development, although I am slightly unclear about whether the British Government and indeed the Labour party are arguing for being in “the” customs union or being in “a” customs union with the European Union, because they are diametrically opposed. Even if we did decide to stay within the single market and the customs union for the transition period, the key question arises of what happens at the end of that two-year period. If we are to have a free trade agreement such as that with Canada, it will take far longer than two years to negotiate.
With reference to the border on the island of Ireland, Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator on behalf of the European Union, has said that the EU will not tolerate the UK using this soft border between the six counties and the Republic as a way of avoiding the trade consequences of leaving the customs union. That is the crux of the problem. Even if the British Government’s position stands, there will be two types of borders between the Irish Republic and the British state. There will be a soft border on the island of Ireland and a hard border on the maritime divide between Ireland and Wales. Inevitably, that will have a huge impact on Welsh ports.
We heard earlier about the huge tailbacks that we can expect at Dover and some of the Channel Island ports. Welsh ports will face exactly the same situation, and the infrastructure is not there to deal with such challenges. That might lead to business being diverted away from the traditional Wales-Ireland trade routes to trade routes between Belfast and Scotland and England. Therefore, instead of businesses flowing between Dublin, Dun Laoghaire, Rosslare and Cork to Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke, they will be flowing between Belfast and other parts of the UK. We must remember that the Welsh ports sustain thousands of jobs. This is all an unintended consequence of the British Government’s muddled policy.
I want to finish with a point about the impact of leaving the customs union on the UK’s constitutional arrangements. International trade is a reserved matter. However, trade policy could have massive ramifications on the ability of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Governments to deliver on devolved competences. For instance, if the British Government were to allow food products of a lower standard to enter the UK, it would obviously have an impact on Welsh agricultural policy, not least our ability to export to our main European market in the customs union. If the British Government, for whatever reason, open up public services to further private interference, which has been the concern of many experts in this field, it would fundamentally undermine the ability of the devolved Governments to deliver competences within their public services for which they have responsibility. There is probably a whole range of other problems that I have not even considered yet.
In recognition of those potential problems ahead, the trade White Paper does talk about reconstituting the Board of International Trade with representatives from all four constituent parts. However, that does not go anywhere near far enough. In my view, trade policy would have to become an area of shared competence between the British and the devolved Governments. Within the EU customs union, EU trade deals need the endorsement of all member states and even some other governments, as we saw with the issue of Wallonia during the comprehensive economic and trade agreement discussions. It would be absolutely incredible to me if trade policy was the sole preserve of Westminster, with the interests of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland neglected, and our devolved and democratic Governments and Parliaments not allowed to have a say on that. In my view, Brexit will make a new UK constitutional settlement inevitable. Inter-governmental networks within the British state will need to be formalised and strengthened. If we fail to do that, every trade deal could be a constitutional crisis.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am pleased to speak in favour of amendments (c) and (e) in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I sincerely hope that he will press them to a vote later this evening.
No one here would disagree with the need to have new customs legislation in place. Given that much of the customs legislation that we currently have is derived from EU legislation, nobody would argue with the fact that when the UK leaves the European Union that legislation will have to be replaced. However, as is so often the case in the debate about the European Union, we have moved very quickly from, “We need to have something in place” to being told that, “You will agree to put this in place whether you like it or not.” It is quite clear that there is a fundamental disagreement between—I suspect—a substantial majority of Members of this House and the Government on whether we should also be preparing to leave the customs union and the single market.
As well as paving the way for new customs tariffs, which is what this resolution is about, the resolution also implicitly paves the way for all the additional bureaucracy, all the additional infrastructure and all the additional border delays that leaving the customs union will inevitably create for every single journey of every single person and every single lorry and every single suitcase that travels to and from the European Union in future. It has been estimated that there will be an additional 548,000 customs declarations needed every day—that is six and one third declarations per second.
Angela Smith
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this particular problem will apply pretty severely to perishable goods such as food, agricultural produce and fresh fish.
Peter Grant
Absolutely. There are significant implications for perishable goods and, as was mentioned earlier, for the manufacturing supply chain where the goods can cross borders several times. There are also implications for medical supplies such as radioisotopes, which are useless if they are held up for a few hours at customs. That, of course, is before we even think about the massive inconvenience to travellers—either for business or leisure. Even if they have nothing to declare, they have no guarantee that they will not be on a plane when, for whatever reason, UK or French customs decide that they are going to search every single passenger coming off that plane.
We are told that in return for that, we will have this brave new world of trade deals with everybody and anybody. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), who is no longer in his seat, harked back to the glory days of Glasgow’s place as the second city of the empire, blithely forgetting that, to our eternal shame, that empire was built on slavery. We cannot go back to the days when Glasgow was a huge trading port for tobacco, sugar and cotton because—thank God—we no longer have the slave plantations that were such an important part of that economic model.
We are not going back to the days of empire and too many virtual reality Government Members—well, there are not currently many Members on the Government Benches—need to understand, once and for all, that empire has gone. It is now partnership. Partnership means that when we are in a weakened position and the big players such as the Chinese, the Singaporeans and the Malaysians are in a strong position, we are not going to get a favourable deal from them if we negotiate on our own.
I do not want this motion to apply to goods going to and from the European Union or the customs union, because I want us still to be in the customs union. It has been made clear that that offers by far the simplest and least disruptive way of giving effect to the referendum result in June last year. The referendum, as far as the voters of England and Wales were concerned, certainly gave a mandate to leave the European Union, and we have to respect that. But there has never been a referendum mandate to leave the customs union or the single market. There was what looked to be an almost spontaneous, hasty and precipitate decision by the Prime Minister; a red line was drawn that has now painted the Government into a corner.
It is becoming clear that many of the Government’s highly plausible-sounding objectives simply cannot happen if we leave the single market. Those highly plausible-sounding objectives include the “deep and special partnership” that we are going to have with the European Union, the “continued close association” with the customs union, and the
“freest and most frictionless trade possible”
with the single market. Except it will not be as deep and special a partnership as it would if we were in the EU, it will not be as close an association with the customs union as being in the customs union, and it certainly will not be anything like as free or frictionless a trade deal as we can get by staying right where we are now in the single market.
As an indication of how much substance there is to these sound bites that the Government Whips are so fond of encouraging their Back Benchers to use, it is worth remembering that they were doing the same thing just over two years ago. But the sound bites that got cheers on the Tory Benches then, on the days when there was anybody there to cheer, were “long-term economic plan” and “Majority Conservative Government”. “Hear, hear”, they would shout. The Government’s current platitudes about easy trade deals are likely to be consigned to history just as quickly as the things that they thought would be around for a long time back in 2015.
We are now more than halfway through the journey from referendum to leaving day, and there is not one single major policy area where the Government have put forward a clear, concrete proposal for discussion. That means that on every major policy decision, the Government have taken longer to come up with an idea than 27 Parliaments—and 27 Governments will have to agree it. Putting pressure on those Governments and telling them that it is not fair to delay it will not work; they will act and speak in the interests of their people. It is ridiculous to condemn the Irish Prime Minister for speaking in favour of the interests of the people of the Republic of Ireland. That is what Prime Ministers are supposed to do. I wish that some Prime Minister would maybe listen to that.
As it stands, we are in serious danger of crashing out of the EU without a deal, but there is a simple way that the Government can avoid that. There is a simple way that they can move very quickly to clear the logjam—to avoid having interminable discussions about Northern Ireland that do not have a solution and to avoid having interminable discussions about the rights of 4.5 million citizens. Both those major problems can be substantially resolved simply by the Government having the humility to say, “We got it wrong. We have to change tack and stay in the single market.”
There is an urgent need for the Government to follow their own advice, listen to their own rhetoric and listen to the advice that the Brexit Secretary gave to the Germans last week: stop putting politics before prosperity, because it is never a smart thing to do. The Government should take the decision that they know as well as I do will prevent the worst economic and social damage of Brexit. The Government should confirm today that they want to remain in the single market and the customs union, and they should signal that intention by accepting the amendments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South without forcing the House to a Division.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who made another powerful case for what is becoming incredibly evident in British society.
Let me start by trying to find some common ground on something that has divided us for more than 18 months now. I do not think that anybody here tonight wants to re-run the referendum; we all recognise the referendum result. I do, however, disagree with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I think we can get deals with anybody. The question is, what kind of deal and what are the consequences? And that includes no deal. Yes, we could get a free trade deal with other countries but, as we saw when Switzerland tried to negotiate with China, when big goes against little, the results are often not good for little. It is a real Hobson’s choice. China now has immediate access to the Swiss market, while the Swiss will have to wait decades to get similar access to the Chinese market.
All the options have consequences, including the option that this Government have taken over the past 18 months: trying to fudge and bombast their way through. Like many Government Members, I welcome the fact that we are finally having this debate because I want to speak up, above all, for the people whose lives, livelihoods and businesses depend on the certainty of knowing what happens next. That is a certainty that they are not getting from this Government. Some 18 months after the referendum, there are some 759 different treaties that have to be renegotiated, but there has been no progress on any of them, and we are fewer than 18 months away from the date on which we are supposed to leave the European Union.
The Government are spending money, hand over fist, to try to sort out the mess that they are creating every single day. We have had it confirmed that that money is coming from our armed forces, and the Minister has confirmed to me today that it is also coming from our education services. Money is being reprioritised to try to figure out what on earth a deal with Europe would look like. Eighteen months on, we have no answers. And all because the Prime Minister simply cannot admit that she simply got it wrong in the Lancaster House speech when she ruled out of access immediately the customs union and the single market.
I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) because the British public deserve better. If the Government are going to make a mess of it, it is up to us as parliamentarians to try to give the people we represent—who need certainty and to understand what their future holds—the clarity that they desire.
Peter Grant
Does the hon. Lady think that it says something about the Prime Minister’s priorities that she took the time to apologise to her own Back Benchers for the disastrous general election that she dragged them into, but she will not apologise to the people of these islands for the disastrous Brexit that she is dragging us into?
Stella Creasy
I was struck by the discussion earlier about making decisions so quickly. I, too, did not vote for the article 50 legislation to be triggered, because I was concerned it was too soon in the process. However, some disasters are of our own making, and a snap general election in which the public thoroughly rejected her hard Brexit is certainly something the Prime Minister should learn from.
In her Lancaster House speech, the Prime Minister said that she wanted associate membership of the customs union—a membership that does not exist. The legislation that will come from the motion before us tonight is supposed to answer that question. Yet, I have read the Government’s White Paper, I have asked the Prime Minister repeatedly about the idea of associate membership, and I have asked her whether she has raised it with her European counterparts, and we have no answer.
It is a bit like someone asking to be an associate member of a gym—to use the swimming pool, but not to pay for all the weights or classes. Oddly enough, most business people would turn them down flat or at least give them an answer. I am very struck by the fact that, 18 months on, the Government cannot even tell us whether they have asked whether the wonderful, mythical, innovative, creative, dynamic partnership they believe they can get is even on the table.
This approach literally makes no sense. If we look at the reality of how we trade as a nation, we see that we are not an island factory; we are a nation that works with other countries to produce goods, and we are proud of the goods we produce through our hard endeavour. Let me give a great example. In the food and beverages industry, the EU accounts for almost 70% of our supply chain. In our car industry, 44% of the value of UK car exports comes from imported products. In the UK, we are great at making bumpers, brakes and clutches, but we are not so good at radiators, suspension or gearboxes. That is why we work with other countries to produce the great British cars that we are all so proud of. That is what is at stake when we reject the customs union out of hand: the ability to navigate and manage those relationships effectively and efficiently. For every £1 in car exports from the UK, 44p is spent on importing foreign parts. Some 24% of all imports from the EU are from the car industry. That is at stake when we suddenly rip up the rules under which that relationship happens.
The car industry is not alone. In 14 different sectors, at least 15% of the supply chain is dependent on the European Union—dependent on not having the kind of customs tariffs we are talking about and on having frictionless trade. That is true of some sectors much more than others. In the paper industry, 71% of the supply chain is dependent on the European Union. In the rubber and plastics industry, the figure is 69%; in pharmaceuticals, it is 66%. That is why we know that leaving the customs union will cost us £25 billion. These new tariffs alone will add at least £4.5 billion a year to importers’ costs—money they can ill afford to spend.
Then we get on to the practicalities—this is not just about the money that being part of the customs union and the single market helps us to save. We will see delays at Dover because nobody has yet invented the technology that will allow this frictionless trade. When we talk about pre-lodging customs checks, we know that that means still more paperwork and more complexity in the supply chain. It is no wonder the car industry is desperate for us to continue our membership of the customs union. So too is the National Farmers Union; so too are the leading pharmaceuticals brands. Being part of the EU gives us access not just to markets in the EU but, through our free trade agreements, to a third of all global markets at preferential trading rates.
When we look at the case for the customs union and at what it gives us now, it is clear that this is not about nostalgia for the “Ode to Joy”; cold, hard business sense says that if we have a good way of working, why would we rip it up? But ripping it up is exactly what the Government are doing—for something that, 18 months on, they still cannot tell us will exist. [Interruption.] I am sorry to see that I have made the Ministers entirely leave the Front Bench by pointing that out, because I really hope that at least one Minister will be here to answer one of my concerns about this legislation and particularly about the VAT proposals.
We have all talked about tariffs and customs tonight, but I want to unmask myself as a geek interested in VAT. When I talk to small businesses in my local community, VAT is one of their prime concerns. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) for being here. I am particularly looking for answers on the 13th directive—I know it is something he knows intimately.
VAT is one of those issues every business will say is a nightmare. I never thought that Labour Members would be arguing for less red tape than Government Members were, but that is exactly what we are talking about tonight. Some 63% of small businesses say that Europe is their priority market. If we add to the paperwork they have to deal with by removing the customs union and the single market, we will of course make trading harder for them. Compared with the bigger companies, they do not have the flexibility that Ministers blithely suggest they have.
Currently, businesses incurring VAT in the EU are able to claim it back through intra-country mechanisms. If they sell printers to Sweden, and they incur VAT as part of that, they can claim it back—it is relatively easy. Specifically—I am sure the Minister will want to look this up—we are talking about articles 170 and 171 of Council directive 2006/112/EC—the prime VAT directive. The detailed rules are in Council directive 2008/9/EC, and they are in our legislation. These Ways and Means resolutions will therefore have to address this point. I am sad that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not here to hear it, because I have been raising it with him for some time. I can see that he is talking to his officials. I very much hope that in his concluding remarks he will finally be able to tell me the answer.
Right now, because we have the single market, businesses trading with Europe can reclaim their VAT and manage VAT relatively simply. If we leave the single market, they will have to move on to the 13th directive, which covers non-EU companies trading in the EU. The details of the 13th directive are clearly written to be advantageous to companies, saying that they can set their own VAT terms. Let us think about that for a moment. A UK car manufacturer trying to trade across Europe in radiators and the pieces and parts that make them will suddenly have to deal with VAT across 27 different countries, and 27 different pieces of paper. I am glad that the Financial Secretary is now here because he and I share a concern to remove red tape for our businesses to make sure that British businesses are not facing additional paperwork and additional complexity.
Mrs Ellman
Does my hon. Friend agree that the very serious problems for businesses that she is so ably identifying have implications for the whole of a local community? As companies get into great difficulties and jobs may be lost, that reduces spending power and affects the whole community and the services there.
Stella Creasy
I absolutely agree. This is the challenge that we face.
Eighteen months on, it is not unfair that businesses across the country are saying “What next?” and asking how they might adapt to whatever the final deal with Europe might be. Eighteen months on, none of us is any closer to being able to give them any answers. They do not need White Papers that talk about ambition and creativity in VAT proposals; they need clarity, because if they are going to have to learn new systems and have additional paperwork, and if there are going to be excessive delays in their imports and exports, they need to be able to adjust for it. The Government can say all they want about getting these ambitious deals, but they have to negotiate with 27 other countries that are quite happy with the relationships that they already have, perfectly satisfied with the intra-EU arrangements that they already have, and think that the customs union works for them. If we in this House want frictionless trade, if we want to make it as easy as possible for our businesses, big or little, to trade, and if we want them to have as little paperwork—digitised as it is—as possible, then the answer is the single market and the customs union. In 18 months, nobody has been able to come up with a better arrangement. I will wager that the same will be true in 18 months’ time.
Let us not leave British businesses hanging any longer. I am backing the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South because I want to be able to go tomorrow to those businesses in my community that trade with Europe and say to them, “This is what it’s going to look like. You can plan ahead in your supply chain, you can buy ahead, you can do the deals you need to do, and you can invest.” I understand why they feel that they cannot do that right now, and it is my job to try to help them gain that certainty. That is why I ask other Members of this House to join us in voting for this amendment and giving this Government the message that Britain deserves better.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a very brief contribution to this debate. I support the powerful case that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) made for preventing Parliament from being sidelined on this important issue, and welcome the very significant contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray).
The provision for customs duties is a crucial consideration in what is rapidly unravelling as the very expensive and complicated process of Brexit. The Home Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, held an inquiry looking in detail at customs operations in the delivery of Brexit. The evidence given to our Committee should give us all great cause for concern, particularly if the Government’s uncosted and unspecific plans proceed unamended. Delivery of our customs policy is a cross-Government process, with a wide range of Departments and agencies working in a delicate balance and under significant pressure.
The impacts of changes to our customs regime are widespread. There are serious concerns about the urgent work needed on port and transport infrastructure, customs operations, capacity in the Border Force, and HMRC—particularly in preparation for a no-deal scenario, which the Home Secretary described in our Committee as “unthinkable”.
The customs White Paper continues the Government’s worrying trend of relying heavily on secondary legislation and circumventing Parliament. My constituency in Croydon has been on a key trading route between the coast and the City for hundreds of years, and it continues to be so today. It is my job to ensure that businesses and industries in my constituency continue to flourish.
Sweeping new and unscrutinised arrangements for customs duties are a threat to our domestic industries and have the potential to choke up our entire customs system. I want to highlight a few issues identified by the Home Affairs Committee that show us how important it is to get this right and how damaging it will be if we do not. Having the right checks and balances in place before changes are made is a big part of that.
IT systems are a particular concern. Amyas Morse of the National Audit Office has warned that the current system threatens to become “a horror show” because of a lack of flexibility to cope with any new rules after Brexit. The chief executive of HMRC told us that the delivery of the customs declaration service was absolutely vital and that it would be “catastrophic” if the system was not operational on Brexit day. HMRC will need to add another 5,000 staff by March 2019. Its capacity to deliver what is needed has been mentioned, and it remains a significant concern of the Committee.
The Government’s planning to date was completely unconvincing to the Home Affairs Committee. The National Audit Office expressed further concerns about the struggles that the Border Force will face in dealing with the training, workforce, financial and prioritisation adjustments that will result from the multitude of operational changes caused by Brexit in a very short timescale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Committee, warned that getting things wrong in our ports infrastructure could lead to “Operation Stack on steroids”.
The Committee made the obvious point that the option that would cause the least upheaval would, of course, be the operation of the status quo and that the Government should agree transitional arrangements to that end—that is, remaining in the customs union. The Committee expressed a lack of confidence in the important question of who is in charge of the customs change, and the Committee was not satisfied with the Government’s answers to that question. Progress seems to rely on working groups of Government officials with no meaningful ministerial leadership. The fact that multiple Departments and agencies are involved in delivering customs means that a fully joined-up approach from the Government is urgently needed. We recommended that a Minister of State, at the very least, should be named as the lead Minister responsible for delivery of post-Brexit customs arrangements.
The more unfettered the power held by Ministers and unaccountable agencies, the greater the risk that we get this wrong and leave our current systems simply unable to cope. The House should not accept the Government’s approach of trying to undermine Parliament, doing Brexit on the cheap and perhaps steering us towards a no deal, while sneaking measures through the back door. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that she had read all the things and that she remained very unclear about how customs might look in the future. I agree with her point.
I was part of the Government Olympic executive as a senior civil servant, and we spent years putting in place the right frameworks and doing very detailed planning for the Olympic and Paralympic games. The House will remember that the one area where we faltered was the recruitment of security staff by G4S, which led to the Army being brought in. We read today that there are already problems with the recruitment of staff to deal with Brexit. It is crucial that Ministers do what they can to ensure that the right framework remains in place or that we continue with the status quo on customs, so that we do not find ourselves in a similar situation.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow many excellent speeches on this crucial issue. Sadly, it seems to have attracted less attention than it deserves, given its huge implications for our economy and our future trading partnerships. It has always been my view that we should stay in the customs union, and I am glad that the Labour party position keeps that possibility open.
I very much agree with what my Front-Bench colleagues have said today about the importance of scrutiny. That applies not just to customs deals; I have signed early-day motions and supported many other motions calling for us to have much greater scrutiny in this place over trade deals. Whatever our views might be on the nature of those deals and where they should go, it is only right that they are properly scrutinised in this place.
For me, there are two fundamental issues: first, the practicalities and, secondly, the cost. I want to draw somewhat on the report on customs arrangements by the Home Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. The report encapsulated the situation most clearly with the statement:
“At some ports, including Dover, as much as 99% of traffic relates to trade with the EU; witnesses told our predecessors that a no deal scenario might therefore result in effectively 100% of trade becoming ‘non-EU’, leading to a hundredfold increase in the number of customs declarations. This would be an unprecedented delivery challenge to UK border operations.”
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend can see the coast of my Bristol North West constituency from across the channel. Does he recognise that the issue involving ports such as Bristol that import and export tens of thousands of cars, wings, landing gears and engines every year is one not just for businesses, but for the entire city, which will be clogged up, as will cities around ports throughout this country? This will be a nightmare for constituents, but it will also create air pollution, as well as ruining business.
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s points. I can indeed see his constituency across the waters of the Bristol channel. I will come on to say something specifically about the aerospace industry, which is crucial not only for his constituents, but for many of mine and for the whole of Wales.
Our report made very clear the costs involved. It highlighted the fact that an Institute for Government report has stated that the introduction of customs declarations on EU trade could cost traders between £4 billion and £9 billion a year, based on its various estimates, including an expected 200 million additional declarations after Brexit. Mark Corby has estimated that the additional cost is likely to be between £19 billion and £26 billion a year, as a result of losing the customs and trade facilitation and duty benefits that EU membership offers.
We must also look at the costs of putting in place all the infrastructure. We have heard much discussion today about infrastructure, whether at Dover or at other ports. I am thinking in particular of Welsh ports, especially in relation to the maritime border between Wales and the Republic of Ireland, which is important to get right. This is not only about the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but about the maritime border between Wales and the Republic. Jon Thompson, the chief executive of HMRC, has told the Public Accounts Committee that HMRC estimates the costs at between £300 million and £450 million in the scenario of the UK leaving the EU without a deal and that between 3,000 and 5,000 additional staff would have to be recruited.
These are huge sums, and it is very important that the public understand the costs, the risks and the practicalities. However they voted in the referendum and whatever form of Brexit they prefer, these are the sorts of facts that we need to put before the House and the country when we are taking decisions about the nature of our future relationship with our European partners.
I said that I would talk about the aerospace industry, and I draw attention to the relevant declarations in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Airbus has been very clear that its work involves 80,000 trips between the UK and EU countries a year, which relies on a seamless flow of goods and people, and that removing the seamless nature of that will be dangerous for its business and its prospects. Airbus and companies in its supply chain currently collect limited data for customs needs, but on the assumption that the UK becomes a third country, it would need to produce a customs declaration on wings and satellite components moving from the UK to the EU27. One early assumption is that this would require as many as 50 datasets for declarations, including for country of origin.
At the moment, the Airbus transport aircraft fly from Toulouse, Hamburg and Broughton with only two hours between landing, loading and departure, but should they need to await additional customs inspectors or paperwork, that would lead to delays and have an impact on its delivery schedule. As many Members will be aware, there are heavy commercial penalties for missed deliveries and delays in parts and equipment. This is not just a trifling matter: Airbus spends £5 billion a year in its UK supply chain. We are looking at the problems of transferring small parts and equipment back and forth, which has an impact not only on Airbus directly as a company, but on all those involved in its supply chain, which stretches much further than the thousands it employs directly.
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Gentleman know of any Government plan to solve this problem for Airbus? I think this would be fatal to such a fantastic project, which completely relies on all these different components moving right across the European Union so frictionlessly. Does he know whether anybody has come up with an alternative?
Stephen Doughty
I am not aware of any alternative. Indeed, we can sense growing frustration in the country at the moment about the lack of such information. In fact, Airbus has come out in public today to make very clear its view that we need a “lengthy transition”, in its own words, and it has made a very clear statement about what it wants if it is to keep its business going.
I have mentioned Rolls-Royce. I was recently visited by Unite’s shop stewards from its manufacturing facilities in Derby, who were very clear about the implications for them. Simon Hemmings, the chief negotiator for Rolls-Royce staff, said:
“If we are not in the customs union there will be job losses. If we have a hard Brexit, the foundations we have built…for the next generation of engines will not be built upon. They will be built elsewhere.”
That is absolutely clear: some aerospace parts cross the channel five times as they move along the various assembly lines in factories in both the UK and continental Europe. That is just one example, one industry that contributes an incredible amount in terms of high-skill, high-tech jobs not only to Wales, but to south-west England, Derby and more widely. We ignore the concerns of those businesses at our peril.
The Home Affairs Committee was clear about the implications—for example, concerns about IT systems, the lead times needed to train new customs officials and the worries about whether the Home Office, which maintains Border Force, which would carry out many of the customs checks on behalf of HMRC, plans only 300 extra staff, even though HMRC says between 3,000 are 5,000 extra staff are needed. Where is the planning going on? Who is in charge of the process within the Government? Whatever the final scenario, it is crucial that we have trained, skilled staff in place. It is crucial to our security that staff who are there to police our borders, checking passports and other identity documents and people who may be involved in illegal activities, are not diverted into dealing with customs backlogs. One can imagine a situation in which we crash out with no deal, leading to queues—Operation Stack on steroids—and the Government suddenly having to drag staff back and forth, with delays at borders and delays at customs. If we do not plan and get the staff in place, we will have serious problems.
The report is clear that, given the lead times for changes in staffing, technology and infrastructure, Border Force, HMRC and other public sector agencies need to clarify rapidly whether and what changes will be required for transition, and crucially, how much they will cost. It is only right that the British public and Parliament see the costs of a no-deal Brexit, or a hard Brexit versus some of the other options, such as staying in the customs union.
Our report states that
“If no deal is reached on customs arrangements, it will result in all those involved in customs in the UK experiencing a huge amount of change in a very short time, with a vast increase required in capacity and processes at the border, with the risk of either significant delays at points of entry, or of inadequate checks taking place.”
The Minister said earlier that cliff-edge changes were in no one’s interest and spoke of a two-year implementation period and various plans that he will produce. I hope that if, as I suspect, we hear from the more extreme elements on the Government Benches saying, “Get on with a no-deal Brexit. Let’s fall out of these arrangements,” he will be the first to condemn and criticise those voices. To do otherwise would be at odds with his statements today.
These matters are fundamental to the future of our economy, our jobs and our ability to trade with the rest of the world. It is important that they are given due scrutiny and that we understand the full costs. I commend the many speeches that have been made in this debate.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for his introductory remarks, but I have to say that both they and the resolutions leave four important problems unresolved. Many Members have spoken to those problems today. I will speak as telegraphically as I can about them, and speak to amendments (e) and (f).
First, as many colleagues have said, the resolutions fail to ensure that the Government’s approach on customs is properly democratically accountable. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said the Government proposals were a guddle, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) spoke eloquently about their incoherence, but I think there is an element of coherence, as stated clearly by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who highlighted the presence of the paragraph that, sadly, we see in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, elements of the Finance Bill and the Trade Bill. The resolutions would give Ministers the ability to vary customs duties without what we regard as proper parliamentary scrutiny, and we cannot stand by and allow that as a House that is accountable to our constituents, who could suffer greatly from that sort of action.
Secondly, the Minister would say only that we need some kind of customs association during the transition period. It is unfathomable to Opposition Members why the Government are refusing to rule in continuing customs union membership, even during a transition period, when that is what business has so clearly demanded.
Thirdly, we had very little enlightenment about the capacity of HMRC and the concrete actions the Government will take to deal with the many challenges my hon. Friends expressed so very eloquently. My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) expressed concerns about the additional administrative burdens that will apply, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). It has been suggested that the number of customs declarations could shoot up by 100%, and that is in the context of HMRC’s headcount being reduced by over a sixth since 2010. Of course, we did not have the clarification we needed about the scope and functions of the new trade remedies authority, despite my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) pushing hard on the issue.
Fourthly, we have had much discussion about the dangers of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. I can say very strongly that we on the Labour Benches do not just want an aspiration to avoid such a border, we need a cast-iron assurance and we do not have it yet from the Government.
I understand, and indeed agree, with many of the sentiments underlying amendments (e) and (f), especially as they were articulated by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South and for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). It is absolutely right to highlight, as they did, the recklessness of the Government in ruling out membership of the customs union as part of our future relationship with the EU. I am concerned, however, about how the amendments would interact with WTO rules, not least because of the Government’s disturbing unwillingness to rule out leaving the EU without a deal. The amendments would apply regardless of the future customs model. The scope is not restricted, as currently drafted. We on the Labour Benches have repeatedly indicated why leaving the EU without a deal would be a huge blow to British businesses and British jobs, yet the Government have failed to rule out this eventuality and their existing negotiating approach does not inspire confidence—quite the opposite.
Angela Smith
May I read my hon. Friend’s comments as a statement that the Labour Front Bench does support staying in the customs union, but on technicalities will not support the amendment? Do Labour Front Benchers support staying in the customs union?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. As she will know, the Labour position is that we want to leave all possibilities open. We think that is an appropriate approach to take. [Interruption.] I see Government Members laughing at that. We are in a negotiation where it is surely absolutely essential that we put Britain’s interest first and that means not taking options off the table. Sadly, the Government did that very early on and caused an enormous amount of bad will from our other EU partners, which we regret enormously. They should not have done that.
If the worst does happen and the Government lead us—through their lack of application and, frankly, the internecine squabbles on the Government Benches—to leave the EU without a trade deal, the rules of the WTO leave us no option but to trade with our European partners on the same basis as we trade with all countries with which we have no free trade agreement. This is the most favoured nation principle at the heart of the WTO: that there must be no arbitrary discrimination between trading partners of a similar developmental status, unless those countries have negotiated a free trade agreement that meets the WTO’s definitional requirements.
If we were to adopt amendments that allow the UK Government to set customs duties on imports and exports from every other country in the world but not our European neighbours, in the case of a chaotic no-deal situation we would be faced with two unpalatable options. First, we could disregard the most favoured nation rule, in which case we would be exposed to virtually limitless potential dispute challenges from all other WTO members. The second option is abiding by the most favoured nation rule, but that would mean having to trade with all other countries on the same basis as we traded with the EU—namely, as the amendments would have it, without tariffs or quotas. Some Conservative Members and groups, such as the so-called Economists for Free Trade, would wish for such an outcome—a unilateral abolition of tariffs and all other trade barriers—freely admitting that such a scenario would see the end of manufacturing in the UK, as well as the end of agricultural production and the concomitant loss of millions of jobs.
Mr Leslie
I hear very much my hon. Friend’s argument, but would she acknowledge that this is a paving Ways and Means motion seeking, at this snapshot in time, to circumscribe the scope of the Bill to ensure that we can replicate the current customs union? Should we have, at some hypothetical point in the future, that crashing-out scenario, Parliament could address that at that point, and so at present the amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) are absolutely pertinent to the message we need to send to the Government.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but the problem is that the Government’s stated intention with these motions—they have said it time and again—[Interruption.] May I finish my point? They have said time and again that these motions are about our future relationship with the EU. I am afraid that they do not see them as part of a negotiation that might change. I would hope that generally the Government would be far more open about their negotiating position—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Answer the question.
Anneliese Dodds
I just have, if the hon. Gentleman doesn’t mind. The Government have stated that the motions are about that future relationship, and so we have to take them at their word, even if we might have been mistaken in doing that on other issues.
It has been suggested that, if the Government recover a sense of responsibility and sincerity and genuinely engage us in negotiations, albeit after wrongly ruling out a customs union with the EU, it could involve the adoption of deals similar to CETA or the Turkish deal. Now, CETA does not cover agriculture, so if we get a deal on industrial goods procurement and so forth, we might then need, concomitantly, still to have a deal on the protection of sensitive agricultural products, so we would need to have those powers still there. The Turkish bespoke deal, for its part, still necessitates anti-dumping and countervailing duties on both the Turkish and the EU sides.
To conclude, we have to be clear about what amendments (e) and (f) ask for. They do not, in and of themselves, guarantee that the Government will seek continued customs union membership, because they would apply across the piece of whatever arrangements the Government lead us to.
Ian Murray
I have tremendous respect for my hon. Friend and the work she has done on this, but if she disagrees with the technical aspects of my amendment but agrees with the principle of staying in the customs union, where are the Front-Bench amendments to do that?
Anneliese Dodds
I am a new Member and I do not know how appropriate it is to talk about which amendments have been allowed and which have not. Ultimately, we are seeking a more democratic process, but we cannot vote on that, which is unfortunate. My hon. Friend will know, as will other Opposition Members, that, as I stated before, the Labour Front-Bench position is to leave all options on the table. That is the best thing for Britain to do. It is very unfortunate that the Government have failed to do that, because it is enormously damaging to our negotiating position. I very much regret that the Government still could, irresponsibly and recklessly, lead us towards a no-deal scenario. In that case, these amendments—sadly—would worsen our situation. I know that that is not his intention—quite the opposite—but as stated that is technically what they would lead to.
Mel Stride
We have had a full and good debate this evening on an extremely important matter. I do not think that anybody on either side of the House would suggest that these matters are not of the utmost importance. Perhaps I could run through some of the points raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) rightly raised with me, as he has done on many occasions, the importance of HMRC being appropriately resourced. He will know that to date we have provided more than £40 million to HMRC and that we will provide it with such funds and resources as it needs going forward. The hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) bemoaned the fact that the Government would be able to change duties as a consequence of the Bill through secondary powers without parliamentary scrutiny. I urge her to wait until she sees the Bill and the opportunities in it for the Government to provide that scrutiny.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said she was not clear what we wanted from these negotiations. We have in our White Paper made clear the direction of travel we foresee in these negotiations. She also raised a point about the customs declaration service computer system, suggesting that we had allowed just three months for testing—that being, I assume, the date between January 2019 and our exit from the European Union. In fact, the full system will be up and running in about August next year, and companies and traders will be migrating to it between August and January 2019.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) says that he wants to stay in the customs union. That is a perfectly reasonable aspiration, but it overlooks the fact that we have voted to leave the European Union, and that we will therefore, of necessity, be leaving the customs union. We want to be able to go out and put together our own trade deals across the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said that the amendments closed off options. He is entirely right, but it is worse than that: they introduce options that are deeply unattractive. If we passed the amendments, we could find ourselves in a position whereby we unilaterally offered the same terms to European countries, but did not receive the same duty arrangements in return, which would be hugely to our disadvantage. Moreover, in the absence of a deal, if we offered those arrangements to European countries, we would find that, under the most favoured nation rules, we would have to offer the same duty arrangements to all the other countries with which we were trading, which would of course be an absurdity, and they would not necessarily have to reciprocate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) talked of our jumping off a cliff into no deal. The Government have no intention of going anywhere near any cliffs or jumping off them. We are pushing for a good deal, we are negotiating hard, and I am confident that we will get a deal that is in our interests and also in those of the European Union.
The Bill is an enabling Bill that allows opportunities, whereas the amendment is disabling in the way I have described. I urge the House to reject both amendments, and I commend the motions to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill
Monday 8th January 2018
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 265 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Government have been clear that in leaving the European Union the UK will also leave its customs union, allowing us to establish and enhance our trading relationships with old allies and new friends around the world. Further to that, the Government have previously set out that in leaving the EU customs union and exercising the powers in this Bill, we will be guided by what delivers the greatest economic advantage to the United Kingdom and by three strategic objectives.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Before my right hon. Friend gets deep into his analysis, may I ask him about the expression “a customs union” in clause 31, which, according to the explanatory notes, clearly includes the EU itself? Will he be kind enough to tell me, either now or later in his speech, what the distinction is between the customs union and other kinds of customs union mentioned in clause 31?
Mel Stride
Clause 31 makes provision for this country to enter into a customs union with another territory. That territory could be the existing customs union of the European Union after we have left the European Union, or it could be another territory separate from it. As he will know, such a move would be subject to a treaty and would not be entered into until a draft statutory instrument had been laid before the House and approved under the affirmative procedure, and then subsequently approved by Her Majesty as an Order in Council.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to do what is of “the greatest economic advantage to the United Kingdom”. Has he assessed whether staying in the customs union would be precisely that?
Mel Stride
I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that we are going down a rather well-worn path. The answer is quite simple: in June 2016, the British people took a decision—people may have ended up on different sides of the argument, but they took a clear decision—that we would exit the European Union. As a consequence of that, we will be leaving the customs union.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I was almost reassured by what my right hon. Friend said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Would it not remain perfectly lawful under clause 31 for this country either to stay in the existing union, or to re-enter it quite quickly without any further change to the law, and while remaining party to all the EU agreements with about 70 other countries and participating in them as though we were still a member of the European Union? If that is strictly the effect of the Bill, may I tell my right hon. Friend that I would be considerably reassured?
Mel Stride
As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, article 50 was invoked—the decision was taken to invoke that particular article—with the consequences that we will exit the European Union on 29 March 2019, and therefore leave the European Union customs union. However, clause 31 does indeed facilitate our future ability to enter into customs union arrangements with other customs unions or territories, subject to the express will of Parliament, as I detailed with reference to the affirmative resolution that would have to be passed by the House.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance tells me that 7,000 manufacturing jobs, including 2,500 in the chemicals industry, will be at risk in my constituency if the UK does not establish effective trade remedies. If there is no customs union, how will the Government guarantee that manufacturing workers will not be negatively affected by unfairly priced or subsidised imports?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman raises the extremely important matter of protecting our UK producers from dumped goods in this country, goods that have been subject to excessive subsidy, and indeed import surges that arise for other reasons. That is why this Bill and the Trade Bill, which will have its Second Reading tomorrow, make provision to set up a Trade Remedies Authority with the ability and powers to investigate appropriately the kinds of issues to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, and to ensure that we are able to take remedial action, in terms of additional duties and so on, to ensure that we properly address those particular threats as and when they occur.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary of course knows how close we came to the collapse of the British steel industry, thanks to the dumping of Chinese steel, but even though schedules 4 and 5 of the Bill refer to incredibly onerous public interest and economic interest tests, there is absolutely no detail of how so many of the practical aspects will work. Why do the Government seem to be set on leaving our manufacturing sector completely exposed to the dumping of Chinese steel, for example?
Mel Stride
I am afraid that I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Bill takes a balanced approach to the issue of protecting our domestic producers including, very importantly, steel producers. By “balanced approach”, I mean that we should also take into account the interests of consumers of those imported goods and businesses that use them in their processes. If the hon. Gentleman looks closely at the measures—we will do that in Committee—he will see that they provide for compensation where dumping has occurred and for appropriate sanctions to be made.
The economic advantage to the UK is very important, and that means continued UK-EU trade that is as frictionless as possible. It also means avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland and establishing an independent international trade policy. As we look forward to the next stage of our negotiations with the European Union, we see that the nature of our future customs relationship with the EU, and therefore the legislation that will allow the Government to give effect to any such relationship, become all the more significant.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions the need to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. I know that he will also agree that we need to avoid an effective hard border on the channel crossing points, particularly the channel tunnel and the port of Dover. That is our principal road freight route for goods back and forth across the continent of Europe. It is essential that we maintain frictionless trade.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why we have consulted ports so extensively, most importantly that of Dover, which I visited myself. I met the port authorities down there, and members of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have been closely involved in consultations with the ports. Of course, the Bill allows the facilitations that we will require—both unilateral and bilateral—to ensure that the smooth flow of trade occurs at those vital ports. It is particularly essential that we do not have any delay to the processing of imports and exports that go through roll-on/roll-off ports.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On the specific need to keep trade frictionless, HMRC, which is part of the Minister’s Department, said that we would need an additional 5,000 customs officials. The Home Office said that it was already recruiting 300 additional staff, although I understand that they will backfill places rather than taking on additional roles. How many new customs officers are currently in training to prepare for the new customs regime in March 2019?
Mel Stride
The important point is that we are in discussions with HMRC about its funding—[Interruption.] If I may, I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are discussing with HMRC the funding arrangements it will need in the 2018-19 financial year. As he suggested, Jon Thompson has said that between 3,000 and 5,000 staff will perhaps be required. Incidentally, they need not be new recruits; they may be people who are reallocated from other parts of HMRC as we change priorities, depending on how the negotiations pan out. I am very confident that an organisation of in excess of 50,000 people will be capable of recruiting sufficient individuals of the right calibre and with the right skills to ensure that the job is done.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that on our current frontiers with the rest of the EU, excise, VAT, general taxation and currency are all different on the other side of the channel or the other side of the border with the Republic of Ireland, and that that all works very smoothly and mainly electronically today? Why do people think there would be a bigger problem if we needed to add another line to the electronic register because there was a customs charge as well?
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is no doubt that we can foresee an end state in which a very frictionless process pertains on the borders between the EU27 and the United Kingdom as a separate customs territory. There are many examples around the world of technology in particular facilitating the free flow of goods across international boundaries.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister referred to the EU’s borders. It is not only that we have a border with the Republic of Ireland, as the British overseas territories have borders. Gibraltar has a border with Spain, and Anguilla has a border with Saint Martin and Sint Maarten. Will he explain what the Bill will mean for British overseas territories?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the overseas territories are not part of the existing European customs union. However, they clearly need to be factored into our discussions and negotiations. We are, of course, close to our overseas territories and, indeed, our Crown dependencies, and we will ensure that the arrangements that would suit those overseas territories, as well as the United Kingdom, are taken into account when determining where we land this deal and the approach that we take.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister recognise the advice given by HMRC’s permanent secretary that it believes that all of what is required is doable, and indeed that it is confident that we can have the movement of trade without significant disruption? Does he accept that if we want a frictionless border not just between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, but between southern Ireland and its main market in the United Kingdom, it is not just a matter of this Bill and the resources being in place, because there needs to be much more co-operation than has been demonstrated so far by the Irish Government?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not want to be tempted too far into the negotiations that pertain to matters between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. However, I will pick up on the point that he and other right hon. and hon. Members have made about readiness. The customs declaration services system that will need to be in place to handle around 300 million import and export transactions and declarations is well on target. It will start to go into use by this autumn and we firmly believe that it will be up and running by next January—well in time for the 29 March deadline.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. Will he tell the House the estimated impact on the beef and dairy sectors in Northern Ireland, following today’s article in the Financial Times that flags up the massive cost to the industry that a completely new customs union system would entail?
Mel Stride
Any issues around impacts on the flow of goods or trade necessarily require an assessment of where exactly the deal with the EU and—specifically in the case of the hon. Lady’s question—the Republic of Ireland lands. Until we know exactly where that lands, it is not possible to start opining on those impacts. I come back to my central point: we are negotiating hard, and it is in our interests, and of course those of the EU, to make sure that we have the lowest duties possible between our trading blocs, and that trade flows as freely and effectively as possible.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been asking the Minister for many months now about the impact of the 13th directive and the ability of other countries, once we are outside the EU, to vary their own VAT requirements. How can he be so confident that by next January he will be able to implement a system that looks at import and export tariffs, given that it will still be dependent on all 27 countries determining their VAT relationship with us? Does he have an agreement with them for that deadline?
Mel Stride
The 13th directive—as the hon. Lady will know, is principally used by countries and businesses outside the EU for the purposes of reclaiming VAT within the UK—will not necessarily be an issue, depending on where the negotiation between us and the EU lands. It is quite possible—indeed, the Bill facilitates this—that continued engagement with IT platforms will allow an easy and effective method of making the kind of reclaims to which the directive relates. She raises the question of whether we have to be ready by next January. If we have an implementation period, for example, we might have considerably longer to bring the process into effect.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
To clarify, is it the Government’s policy to try to remain a member of the EU VAT area? That issue matters massively to hundreds and thousands of businesses.
Mel Stride
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that on day one we are ready for whatever eventuality we are faced with. For example, the Bill moves us away from acquisition VAT to import VAT, as would be the case—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) thinks that that is some extraordinary revelation—almost a divine revelation—but it is actually in the Bill, as he will find if he reads it. To get technical, if he really wants to find out where this will end up, I think it inserts new section 15 into the Value Added Tax Act 1994. All these possibilities will be facilitated, but it will depend on where the negotiation lands.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I appreciate that the Minister did not even get on to the section of his speech about VAT before we started to ask him about it, but following on from the previous intervention, he will be aware that many small businesses in this country have not had to deal with import VAT, because they have been dealing with imports from the EU, and that finding upfront cash to pay for that would be a real problem for them. Will he assure the House that he is aware of that issue and the concerns of small businesses about cash flow, and that he hopes to return to this matter? As he knows, we have discussed this before, and as Chair of the Treasury Committee, I will be writing to HMRC to ensure that we understand its current thinking.
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend, who has been a doughty campaigner for the interests of business, is absolutely right to raise this issue, with which the Government and the Treasury have sympathy. We do not want over 100,000 businesses to be disadvantaged in cash terms in the way she describes, so this is certainly something that we will be looking at closely going forward. The Bill itself does not prescribe any particular end point in this context. It will be for the Government, after the passage of the Bill, to decide exactly where we wish to end up.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend said that the Treasury might be inclined to be generous to businesses that had their cashflow disadvantaged by this change. Would he perhaps be less generous to large businesses that wholly disadvantage their small UK suppliers by forcing them to accept 120-day payment terms, thus effectively putting many out of business? It would be rather generous to let such businesses off earlier VAT payments on their purchases from within the EU if they were not paying their UK suppliers to a decent timetable.
Mel Stride
The issues that my hon. Friend raises are probably slightly beyond the scope of the Bill, but they are none the less important. If he would care to write to me, I should be happy to consider them, and, indeed, to meet him if he so wishes.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being very generous. It would help us all if he could confirm that this is really an enabling Bill, and that it therefore should not alarm either those who wish to see the continuity of existing trading arrangements, or those who want significant differences. It paves the way for either scenario, depending on the negotiations in Europe.
Mel Stride
As usual, my hon. Friend is eloquent and to the point. He makes an important point because, as he says, the Bill is intended to ensure that wherever the deal with the European Union lands, we will be in a position to be ready on day one to ensure that we keep trade flowing across our frontiers, to the benefit of our economy, our businesses and our consumers.
Sir William Cash
I mention this only because of the very articulate response that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). The Bill refers to Orders in Council, which the Financial Secretary has mentioned, and also includes the words “despite any enactment”. Could that include the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, when it has been enacted? Could it also include any other transitional arrangements under a further enactment? The words “despite any enactment” are very dramatic.
Mel Stride
I think it is clause 32 that sets out the basis on which the powers will be dealt with. The Bill is extremely clear that any treaty between ourselves, as a customs union, and another territory or customs union must be subject to a draft affirmative statutory instrument. Having been laid, such an instrument would not come into effect immediately, but only when Parliament—or, specifically, the House of Commons—had considered and passed it. At that point, and only at that point, would an Order in Council follow, which would effectively bring the will of the House into law.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. An important element of what he is talking about is the business community. What consultation has taken place with businesses, and what feedback has there been?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. At the heart of the issues that we are discussing are British businesses of all sizes. Because we want to ensure that we have an environment that is as good as possible for those businesses, consultation has been at the heart of our approach. We produced a discussion paper last year, as well as a White Paper, to which we received responses. I know that my colleagues in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have been actively engaged for many months in roundtable discussions with not just businesses, but representatives of ports and airports, and all the important actors in the process of importing and exporting into and out of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps I could now make a little progress—
Mr Clarke
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so generously, and for giving way to me twice. Let me also congratulate him on the eloquent clarity that he is bringing to this whole subject. He confirmed to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) that this is essentially a contingency Bill in case things change, and that it covers everything from carrying on roughly as we are now to having quite different arrangements. However, does it remain the Government’s preference that things should stay the same if the negotiations are successful? Paragraph 10 of the explanatory notes states that
“it is the government’s intention that the UK’s Customs regime will continue to operate in much the same way as it does today following exit from the EU.”
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that remains the Government’s policy intention in the context of the forthcoming negotiations?
Mel Stride
My right hon. and learned Friend raises an important point. The Government are indeed saying that we recognise the importance of ensuring that we have a smooth and frictionless trading situation between ourselves and the European Union once we have left it. Although we will have left the European Union, the Bill will facilitate our ability to have similarities in the way in which we trade. It will then be up to us to decide how we deviate from our starting point. We see the current position, under the European Union code—the customs code and the legislation in the European acquis—as a starting point to which we need to be reasonably aligned, even though we might diverge from it in the years ahead as a result of the negotiations, if that would be to the benefit of our country.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Minister has clarified that it is the Government’s intention to continue with the existing customs arrangements, and that the Bill will allow for the possibility of a continued customs union. Can he also confirm that the content of any new customs arrangements or customs union will be decided only through secondary legislation, rather than through primary legislation? Would it not be better to have a proper vote on the Floor of the House on primary legislation on whether we should stay in a customs union?
Mel Stride
The right hon. Lady poses an ingenious question. The simple answer is that the form of the arrangements with the European Union after our exit is the subject of the negotiations. The Government have committed to holding a meaningful vote on the deal. The focus will be on whether the deal is appropriate, not on secondary legislation within this legislation. This Bill is designed to facilitate whatever the will of Parliament ends up being. That is the important point.
The Government have been clear from the outset of the negotiations that, as we implement the decision of the British people to leave the EU at the end of March 2019, we want a deep and special partnership with the European Union and that, as we move towards any future relationship, we should seek to minimise disruption and maximise the opportunities that the process of withdrawal represents. That is in the interests of businesses and individuals in the UK and the EU.
Since triggering article 50, the Government have worked intensively with our European partners to settle the issues in the first phase of the negotiations—namely, a fair deal on citizens’ rights allowing UK and EU citizens to get on with their lives in the country in which they live; a financial settlement that honours the commitments that the UK has undertaken as a member of the European Union, just as we said we would; and an agreement on the island of Ireland that preserves the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and the stability that has been brought about by the Belfast agreement. We have made great strides in each of those three areas, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will welcome the European Council’s agreement last month that sufficient progress had been made on phase 1 and that we should move on to talks about our future partnership.
This development in the negotiations means that we can now look forward to discussing our future customs relationship with the EU. As I reminded the House earlier, the Government have been upfront in setting out their objectives for any such arrangement. The Prime Minister has been clear that, although we are leaving the EU, and therefore its customs union, we are not leaving Europe. So just as the UK will establish an independent international trade policy and look to forge trading relationships with new partners around the world, it is also critical that our future customs arrangements allow us to keep trade between the UK and the EU member states as free and frictionless as possible.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Minister keeps on referring to the importance of free and frictionless trade with the European Union, but is it not time for the Government to be a bit clearer with the public that, through our membership of the customs union, we have preferential trade agreements with a further 65 countries right across the world? This is not just about protecting trade with the EU; we also need to protect those existing trading relationships. As far as any future trade deals are concerned, we must recognise that size matters, and that we are better and stronger as part of the European bloc.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and it is one that I largely agree with. It is important that we maintain the existing arrangements that we have been brought into by virtue of our membership of the European customs union, which is exactly why we are in discussions with those countries to ensure that we have appropriate arrangements in place once we leave the EU and its customs union. Over and above that, there will be opportunities to forge trading relationships with other countries around the world, which we are prohibited from doing at present because of our membership of the EU customs union.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
My constituents are today dealing with the news of yet more job losses at Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port. We are a place that manufactures, and we want to keep manufacturing, so can the Minister tell me and my constituents exactly what these opportunities are?
Mel Stride
The opportunities will be very significant indeed—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will attempt to answer her question. Of course our trading relationship with Europe is extremely important, which is why we are having negotiations with our European partners. It is important to us and to them to ensure that we maintain those relationships to the highest degree. However, a growing percentage of our trade is now taking place outside the European Union—certainly more than was the case five or 10 years ago—and the expanding markets of the future are not necessarily going to be the countries that constitute the membership of the European Union. To answer the hon. Lady’s question directly, the opportunities lie out there in China, India, the United States and other countries around the world with which we will be able to forge a freer set of trade agreements than we have been able to contemplate during our membership of the European Union.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Minister continually uses the word “frictionless” and talks about keeping things as they are now. Indeed, the Bill will facilitate our keeping the customs union regulations as they are at the moment, so what principle are the Government using to take participation in the customs union off the table?
Mel Stride
This comes back to the fundamental point that on leaving the European Union we will be leaving the customs union. Then it will simply become a question of what kind of relationship we negotiate with the EU and its customs union. The Government’s position is clear on this. We want these arrangements to be as frictionless as possible. We want to facilitate trade rather than putting barriers in the way of what will be a European customs union of 27 nations after Brexit.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister seemed to say previously that it might not be a great thing for the UK to leave the customs union and the single market, but that we were doing it because that was the will of the people as expressed in the referendum result. Is that the only reason that we are doing this?
Mel Stride
I apologise to the hon. Lady if I said something that in any way misled her. I do not think that I actually said that. What I said was that, as a consequence of leaving the EU, we will of necessity be leaving the customs union. Now, in the negotiations, we need to strike the best possible deal for our country—a deal that is in our interests and those of the European Union and that maintains a close, frictionless, positive and mutually beneficial relationship between ourselves and a customs union of the remaining 27 members.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On the subject of the negotiations that the UK is having with countries with which it currently has free trade arrangements because it is part of the EU, and on the rules of origin issue, what discussions has the Minister had about cumulation and about whether the EU will accept UK-EU cumulation, or whether we will be required to have parts made only in the UK?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Lady will probably know, those are matters of ongoing discussion within the Department for International Trade, but this Bill and the Trade Bill, which will have its Second Reading tomorrow, are about ensuring that country-of-origin issues can be determined by ourselves under our own laws, rather than having to depend upon on those of the European Union.
John Redwood
Will the Minister confirm that the European Union made it clear to the United Kingdom that we cannot stay in the customs union and single market if we will not pay contributions or accept freedom of movement?
Mel Stride
It is entirely true that we cannot have our cake and eat it—[Interruption.] I am paraphrasing the EU, not the Government’s position. Our position has always been that we foresee a mutually advantageous trading relationship with the European Union’s customs union and, for the purposes of this afternoon’s debate, the important point is that this Bill provides and facilitates the ability to produce exactly that.
It is important to provide certainty and continuity to businesses, including the hundreds with which the Government have met and consulted since the referendum. Crucially, the Government remain firmly committed to avoiding any physical infrastructure at the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. That commitment and progress on the issue were formally recognised at last month’s European Council, and it will continue to inform our approach in the future.
The Government set out in their future partnership paper last summer and in the White Paper for this Bill two options for our future customs arrangements—two options that most closely meet those objectives. One is a highly streamlined customs arrangement, which comprises a number of measures to help to minimise barriers to trade, from negotiating the continuation of some existing trade facilitations to the introduction of new, technology-based solutions. The other option is a new customs partnership: an unprecedented and innovative approach under which the UK would mirror the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world that are destined for the EU, removing a need for a formal customs border between the UK and the EU. The Government look forward to discussing both those options with our European partners and with businesses in both the UK and the EU as the negotiations progress.
The Government have already taken a number of important steps to ensure readiness for EU exit, including most recently at the Budget when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced £3 billion of funding for Departments and the devolved Administrations to support their preparations. HMRC is on course to deliver a functioning customs service on day one that enables trade to flow, HMRC to collect revenues and the UK to have a secure border. The Treasury has already effectively allocated over £40 million of additional funding to HMRC this year to prepare for Brexit and continues to work with HMRC to understand its ongoing Brexit requirements. The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill represents a significant part of our preparations.
Mr Leslie
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I sense that he is coming to a conclusion, so I wanted to get this particular question in. The programme motion specifies when he and the Government want the Bill to come back for Report and Third Reading, but how many sittings does the Minister intend the Bill to have in Committee? Many hon. Members would have expected a Committee of the whole House, but that does not appear to be the case and the Committee stage will happen upstairs. Will he guarantee that significant time will be available in Committee for those lucky Members to scrutinise this legislation properly?
Mel Stride
I will make two points. First, as the hon. Gentleman will know, such matters are for the usual channels, and his party is an important part of the usual channels. Secondly, the Bill will of course receive the normal high level of scrutiny as it passes through the House—line by line, clause by clause. Amendments can be tabled, debated and divided on if necessary. The Bill will then come back to the House on Report and for Third Reading. If he has any particular representations to make about the number of sittings in Committee, he should perhaps speak to his Whips, who can then speak to our Whips, and I am sure that we will all end up in a happy place on the issue he has raised.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is being generous, as he always is. Having been opposing Whips at various points on various financial matters, I know that he always does these things in good faith, but I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). Both Front-Bench teams are currently tied up with the Finance Bill that is going through—an important piece of legislation that we quite rightly oppose many parts of. Given that, we will not be able to start the scrutiny of this Bill in Committee for quite some time, and the Bill is due to be out of Committee by 1 February. The Bill will not receive full scrutiny in the House of Lords because this is a money Bill, so will the Minister tell us how many Committee sittings there will be to scrutinise a large, substantial and important Bill?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is being typically tenacious, but he asks the same question as the hon. Member for Nottingham East and he will have the same answer. I will spare the House my eloquence by not going through, once again, the same answer that I just gave.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way and for drawing attention to the “Future customs arrangements” paper that came out in the summer and the two potential solutions: the highly streamlined option or the new customs partnership. Will he confirm that the Government are still open minded about both options and that this Government’s priority is to maximise stability and minimise uncertainty not only for British consumers buying products from the continent, but for continental suppliers trying to sell to us and vice versa?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government’s position is that we are determined to explore both models actively. The new partnership model would be a creative and unique approach to a customs union with the European Union in which we would effectively have a common customs border and no customs border between ourselves and the other EU member states. Its very uniqueness and the creative thinking needed to reach any such agreement means that it would probably happen on a longer timeframe than some of the other approaches that we will be taking, but I can confirm that we want to continue to discuss both options with our European partners.
The Bill allows the UK to establish a new, standalone customs regime, ensuring that VAT and excise legislation operates as required upon EU exit. The Bill makes a number of provisions that are absolutely essential for any future customs regime to function effectively regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. Those provisions include allowing the UK to charge customs duty on goods, including those imported from the EU, allowing the Government to set out how and in what form customs declarations should be made, and giving the UK the freedom to vary the rates of import duty as necessary, particularly in the case of trade remedies investigations and for developing countries. Moreover, it will confer a number of necessary and appropriate powers to allow the UK to respond effectively to the outcome of the negotiations, and it will give the Government the ability to make subsequent changes to the customs, VAT and excise regimes, which may be required later but cannot be predicted as this stage.
As I have set out today, the Government recognise the importance of providing certainty and continuity to businesses, so this Bill will allow the Government to make good on their intention to replicate the effect of existing EU law wherever possible as the UK leaves the EU. I look forward to debating the provisions and the underlying issues as the Bill makes its way through this House. The Bill takes significant steps to ensure that the UK is ready for EU withdrawal by allowing our country to establish a standalone customs regime and by ensuring that our VAT and excise legislation operates as required upon exit day. As we begin discussions with the EU on our future partnership, the Bill ensures that we can do so with the utmost confidence, securing our ability to deliver a robust, efficient, effective customs regime whatever deal is struck with our European partners. As such, the Bill underpins our great country’s ability to pursue its own trade deals with partners from right across the world, and I commend it to the House.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“That this House recognises that the UK will need considered and effective arrangements to ensure a customs and tariff regime, including the potential of a customs union with the European Union, is in place before the UK’s exit, in order to guarantee frictionless movement of goods at UK ports and the ability to levy customs duty and VAT and to protect manufacturing and other key industries through the power to enact protective tariffs, but declines to give a Second Reading to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill because the Government has failed to provide a coherent plan for the operation of the customs and tariff regime after the UK’s exit from the European Union or for the maintenance of frictionless movement of goods at UK ports, because the Bill is not accompanied by proposals to ensure that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are properly resourced and organised to implement a new customs and VAT regime, because the needs of UK manufacturers and producers have not been properly reflected in the design of the proposals and because the Bill proposes to give excessive powers to Ministers without appropriate procedures for parliamentary consultation and scrutiny.”
Here we are at the start of another year, and it feels much the same as the last one—the same old empty Bills, long on rhetoric and short on detail. Yet always the Government’s default position is a fresh set of powers for Ministers, which is the one fixed point in a changing world. This Government seem to be taking back more control from Parliament as each day passes.
The Bill ostensibly sets out to create a functioning customs framework for the United Kingdom once we leave the European Union—hope springs eternal. We accept that such an arrangement is necessary, regardless of the UK’s future relationship with the EU or, indeed, the nature of its wider trading relationship, yet once again we have been denied any detail in the Bill itself, as hon. Members have identified. There is nothing to guarantee frictionless trade through the UK’s ports from the moment of exit, no measures properly to resource Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for the task and nowhere near sufficient detail on the powers and provisions of the Trade Remedies Authority that will be charged with ensuring that our vital British industries are protected. Only yesterday we saw the potentially disastrous consequences of that lack of detail, with reports on the likely result of the Government’s failure to address the EU VAT area for thousands of businesses.
In short, instead of setting up a stable customs framework, this Bill provides few of the policy or, indeed, practical considerations required for the task of leaving the European Union.
Richard Graham
It seems rather curious to criticise the Government for denying any detail while we are in the middle of a negotiation. How could the hon. Gentleman expect any Government to guarantee anything until that negotiation is complete?
Peter Dowd
This Government have guaranteed absolutely nothing whatsoever. Time after time, they hide behind the veil of negotiation.
Before addressing the Bill’s specific failures in meeting the Government’s objectives, I will raise the issue of the powers created by this Bill that enable Ministers to do whatever they want. The leave campaign’s central message, the one repeated time and again and printed across its campaign literature, was that leaving the European Union would allow the Parliaments and Assemblies of the UK to “take back control” of our law making. And yet again, every piece of legislation published by the Government relating to our exit creates more powers for Ministers, while ignoring Parliament completely. Parliament is in a persistent state of having its head patted—that is as much as Parliament is getting at the moment.
Sammy Wilson
Given where we are in the negotiations, does the hon. Gentleman accept that a Bill that allows either for no deal or for complete mirroring of the current arrangements and all possibilities in between is the best Bill we could possibly have?
Peter Dowd
The hon. Gentleman would have a point, but the Government’s record so far is to try to duck every question we ask of them. They constantly hide behind the negotiations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Dowd
Lots of people want to speak, so I will move on and come back in a minute.
We now have a Government who are prepared to change the law to give themselves a majority on Public Bill Committees—that is where we are. They are prepared to ignore votes of the House on Opposition day motions, and they are now prepared to undertake the greatest centralisation of powers that Parliament has seen since the war.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and many Labour Members that the programme motion needs to be more detailed and needs to make it clear that we will have proper scrutiny in Committee, with more sittings than currently appear to be on offer from the Government?
Peter Dowd
We will get as much scrutiny as possible on this Bill.
Having completely failed to create a strong and stable Government at the last election, the Prime Minister seems to be ignoring the will of the electorate and grabbing power by any means necessary. That is particularly the case with this Bill, where Ministers are being handed powers to set import and export duties, preferential rates and quotas across any good or service sector in our economy. This Bill will give the Government the power fundamentally to reshape the environment in which our economy operates with a few strokes of a pen.
Alex Cunningham
As my hon. Friend says, it is critical that Parliament has a say. CF Fertilisers on Teesside is worried about the dumping of cheap goods, particularly from Russia, if we do not get the anti-dumping legislation right. The Minister says that will be addressed by this Bill and by the Trade Bill, which will have its Second Reading tomorrow, but I cannot see anything that says so. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is all the more reason why we need much more time in Committee to ensure that such guards are put in place?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes a good point that we need to have absolute scrutiny of the Government’s proposals.
We know what the Government would do with the powers contained in this Bill. They would tear up protections for British producers and consumers, throw workers’ rights on to the bonfire and create a free-market offshore tax haven—a miserable pound-shop economy. The Government know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
The Government do not have the authority to act in that way. The referendum and the recent election show a country divided, and it is Parliament’s job to reflect the country’s will and to develop a workable consensus. This Government, much like the disastrous Major Administration, have no mandate to implement such far-reaching changes, which is why the Labour party’s reasoned amendment would deny the Bill a Second Reading. We demand that the Government return with a Bill that sets out a clear path to our mutual objective of creating a functioning institutional framework for the handling of customs once we leave the European Union, one that provides the proper powers of scrutiny to Parliament, as promised by the leave campaign and as determined by the citizens of the UK in the recent election. Anything less is an affront to our democratic process and will only spell disaster for our country as this weak Prime Minister becomes prey to the worst instincts of many Conservative Members.
Peter Dowd
I am happy to have a conversation with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber, but this is about the Government’s policy, not ours.
HMRC resourcing is another issue that we have to address. Everyone in this House agrees that we must avoid the nightmare scenario of gridlock at UK ports, with lorry queues stretching as far as the eye can see, yet the Government continue to do Brexit on the cheap with their refusal to fully fund and resource HMRC. Its staffing levels have been cut by 17% since 2010, and they are set to be cut further this year as it plans to close 137 offices across the country. The Minister must recognise the urgent need to hire and train more customs officers and HMRC staff, particularly if the Government are to meet their over-ambitious target of a fully operational customs system by 2019.
Although the Treasury is keen to tout technology as its magic solution to customs post Brexit, Ministers have failed to offer specifics on what a new customs system will look like and on whether it will even be ready in time. At the same time, there remains huge underlying questions about whether the current customs declaration service programme can deal with the sheer workload and pressure post Brexit.
A new IT system is no substitute for a fully resourced and staffed HMRC. Even with a transitional arrangement with the EU, the Treasury must recognise the urgent need to increase HMRC’s budget and staff, which is why the Opposition will attempt to amend the Bill to require Ministers to report back to Parliament on HMRC staffing levels and on the progress on testing and implementing these new systems.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that HMRC has been given all the funding it has asked for to be ready for Brexit? Doe he recognise that the Treasury has set aside a total of £3 billion, that £400 million has gone to HMRC, that the negotiations are under way and that it will be given what it asks for to be ready on Brexit day?
Peter Dowd
There is no one in training and the staff on the ground take a completely different view from the hon. Lady.
The Bill outlines the trade remedies the Government will enforce against the dumping of unfairly priced goods. At the moment, these remedies are provided by the EU, but on leaving, the UK will have to enact and manage its own trade remedies. These measures are spread across this Bill and the Trade Bill and are of great importance to UK manufacturers. As I have said at this Dispatch Box on previous occasions, the Opposition will oppose any attempt by this Government to undermine UK manufacturing and jobs by the weakening of trade remedies, as well as any attempt to dismantle unilaterally the external tariff and open up UK markets to unfairly priced goods. This is a question not of protectionism, but of fairness and the rule of law, as countries that allow or encourage state dumping are not playing by international rules.
The manufacturing industry remains an indispensable part of the UK economy. According to the Office for National Statistics, manufacturing accounted for 2.3 million jobs in 2016 and 10% of the UK’s total economic output. These jobs are shared out across the minerals and ceramics, paper, steel, glass, chemical and fertiliser sectors. They are also spread across communities across the country, where manufacturing remains one of the largest employers. In my constituency alone, more than 2,500 people are employed in manufacturing, and the same will be true of the constituencies of many Members here today.
The trade remedies proposed in this Bill are pitiful to say the least. They are far weaker than the remedies currently in place in the EU and are weaker than those in most developed trading nations, and if they remain unchanged, they will put manufacturing jobs at risk.
Stephen Doughty
I agree very much with the point my hon. Friend is making about the pitiful nature of the trade remedies in the Bill. Indeed, I think that it poses much greater risks for industries such as the steel industry in my constituency. Does he agree that it is necessary to put paid to the myth that existed that we could not take trade remedies when we were part of the EU? Indeed, the former Steel Minister who is sitting opposite, the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), took a good decision, for which I praised her at the time, to introduce remedies on certain steel products that affected steel in my constituency. Whether these decisions are taken or not is a political choice; it is not about whether we can do this or not under the EU.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point.
What is concerning is the fact that UK manufacturers and key industries have not been consulted on the trade remedies in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can explain why, if the Prime Minister is happy to meet representatives from Toyota to agree a deal and the Environment Secretary is in regular contact with the National Farmers Union on future agricultural subsidies, he has failed to consult an industry that represents nearly 10% of the economy and employs millions on the trade remedies it needs to protect UK jobs.
Stephen Kinnock
I am sure my hon. Friend will have seen the letter in the Financial Times from the chief executive officers of the British steel, paper, ceramics, minerals and chemicals associations, along with their trade union counterparts, which puts this very well: they are deeply critical of the Bill, saying it does not do anything like what is required on trade defence and making it absolutely clear that the UK’s manufacturing base and tens of thousands of jobs around the country will be at risk if Parliament gets this Bill wrong.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point, and on that issue the Government just are not listening—it is as simple as that.
As I was saying, I have no doubt that if the Minister had consulted, he would have been told by industry professionals in no uncertain terms to tear up this Bill and start again. It offers no legal certainty for UK manufacturers. Schedule 4, in particular, has little detail on how investigations will be conducted or on how calculations and remedies will be applied. In addition, a mandatory lesser duty rule is completely out of step with the direction the EU is heading in and with the majority of countries in the World Trade Organisation.
The economic interest test outlined in the Bill is of particular concern, as not only is it unique to most WTO countries, but it appears to be tipped towards the consumer and against the producer; it is absolutely out of balance. It is far too wide and gives unprecedented powers to a Secretary of State for International Trade who has already advocated lowering food standards and weakening workers’ rights. The Bill does not state the duration of the remedies that would be in place, whereas the EU currently stipulates five years. Nor is the Bill clear about the rolling over of specific EU trade remedies that are set to expire and that must be replaced by the Secretary of State or whole sectors would be left vulnerable. Those are just a few of the concerns that the Opposition have with the trade remedies outlined in the Bill, and we will raise them further and seek to amend them in Committee.
As I mentioned, the Opposition recognise the need for effective customs and tariff arrangements, which will guarantee the frictionless movement of goods at UK ports. The ability to levy customs duty and VAT as well as to protect manufacturing and key industries when the UK leaves the EU is also important—
Angela Smith
I feel that it is very necessary to ask this question, given that a majority of Labour Members are in favour of staying in the customs union: can our Front-Bench team confirm whether or not they are in favour of staying in the customs union?
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend knows that that matter has been debated on many occasions, and I am not going to go there.
The trade remedies outlined in the Bill are woeful and will not protect UK manufacturing and jobs. Similarly, the Government have failed to provide any clear indication alongside the Bill that they will properly fund and staff HMRC to make sure it can effectively manage our customs and tariff regime post Brexit. This is yet another poorly drafted Bill from an increasingly chaotic and divided Government, who seek to award themselves unprecedented power and shield themselves from any parliamentary scrutiny. That is why I urge colleagues from across the House to support our reasoned amendment.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I really wanted to contribute to today’s debate because my local port of Heysham will be directly affected by the outcomes of what we are discussing today.
I went to see the port not so long ago to talk about how we best facilitate the trade coming through it. I met the port authorities and the chief executive of Seatruck Ferries, Alistair Eagles, who envisaged that, given the way things are looking, there would be no problem with trade from Northern Ireland coming into the port of Heysham and the rest of the UK. There was one thing that concerned me around that time: press reports of a “Dad’s Army” of customs officers being recruited. Such reports were completely unfounded and erroneous, because we know now that customs officers are being recruited. The main point I looked into was the fact we could get our trade from Northern Ireland moving through the port of Heysham seamlessly, as happens now. It was agreed at the time that that could carry on, so I am glad to report to the Chamber that, judging by what I found out and the experiences of how the port is working, we do not envisage a problem.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we on the Northern Ireland side also welcome the fact that the Government have made it clear that trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK will not be interrupted in any way as a result of leaving the EU? Indeed, despite what has been said in this House time and time again, the Government have put forward very positive proposals as to how that frictionless trade can be conducted.
David Morris
I could not have put that any better—I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said.
I will give just one taste of how trade works in my area. We are the first port of call—excuse the pun—for Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and I are going on a little project on a Wrightbus—known as the Boris bus—from his constituency through the port of Heysham all the way down to London to demonstrate exactly how trade works within the UK and how it will flourish under the Bill.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for enlightening the House on that point. As he knows, that bus is in itself a great expression of how trade works within these islands. People from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) work in a factory in my constituency, which draws on skills from across the whole United Kingdom, whether the tarmac manufacturers in Scotland, the electronics manufacturers in Manchester or the window developers for buses. All those skills are put into one product, which is seen every day on the streets of London, Manchester and other parts of the UK. It is a good example of how trade works practically, putting people into employment. I welcome the project that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
David Morris
The hon. Gentleman explains succinctly that the supply chain that makes the buses is immense in his constituency and in the wider UK. That is why trade must flourish between Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and Europe.
It is a fact that we will leave the EU, and it is best to think about how we do it. The Bill covers the initial stages of facilitating that.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. I am sure that he agrees that, given that southern Ireland does 80% of its trade with or through the United Kingdom, it is also in Ireland’s interest that that carries on seamlessly. Like my hon. Friend, I have a port—Cairnryan—in my constituency, and if any of the buses are too much for others to handle, I would love them to be sent my way.
David Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which brings me nicely to my next point. I have to be careful what I say because I am still Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I put it on record that I wish him well. He has not just been an excellent boss; he is a more than excellent friend. I welcome the new Secretary of State, whose name has just been announced: my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley).
We have a free trade border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and we have had it since the 1920s. Two currencies operate in the area, and there is not a problem. To be grown up about the situation, there is no reason why that should not carry on. However, I urge all Members to think of the benefits that can arise from our leaving the EU. Gibraltar has been mentioned. Since Brexit was announced, Gibraltar has increased its trade by 25%, and there does not seem to be a problem with borders that it is not already experiencing. It is therefore in the interests of not just the UK but the EU that we continue with the frictionless borders and frictionless trade tariffs. That is the grown-up view.
I urge hon. Members to allow the Bill to go forward. I will vote for it this evening and I urge Ministers to heed what I have said, even though it is about a microcosm of the UK, and ensure that we get the best deal for the UK within Europe.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which I will call the customs Bill for ease during my speech. I am particularly delighted that we are considering it at the same time as the Finance Bill—that is excellent. I am not sure whether Hansard can capture my sarcasm there.
Is the Minister as concerned as I am about the issues that so many different organisations have raised? Perhaps the Minister and the teams in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have been meeting the organisations that are raising concerns, but I do not think that they have been listening. Part of the problem for me is the wide range of organisations that are raising a wide range of issues. As many hon. Members have said, they include UK Steel, the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance, the British Ceramic Confederation, the GMB and the TUC, but also the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium and the Law Society of Scotland. All those organisations have raised issues, which are not all specifically about trade remedies. There are therefore several problems with the Bill, not just with one aspect but across the measure.
The Bill has 166 pages and creates so many delegated authorities that the Government have had to produce an 174-page document detailing them. The majority relate to the negative procedure, though some relate to the affirmative procedure. In four instances, the UK Government create Henry VIII powers—the power to amend or repeal an Act of Parliament—which are particularly concerning. We have consistently raised concerns about Henry VIII powers, and we will continue to do that. The Chartered Institute of Taxation said:
“The Bill will, we understand, have the powers to amend primary legislation using secondary legislation; raising similar concerns around delegated powers as with the EU (Withdrawal) Bill.”
UK Steel said that
“key aspects of the UK’s trade legislation will evade proper parliamentary scrutiny”.
It is a major concern when UK Steel, a trade body that represents important manufacturers, makes such comments.
The number of organisations that are raising concerns is worrying for Members, as is the fact that so much of the Bill will dodge proper parliamentary scrutiny. Those who supported Brexit as a means to strengthen parliamentary sovereignty are being incredibly badly served yet again by the UK Government. Sovereignty for the Government is very different from sovereignty for Parliament. I urge the Minister to read the Law Society of Scotland briefing on the Bill. It suggests several amendments, and much of its concern is about the lack of requirement for Ministers to consult when making secondary legislation.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
The hon. Lady has mentioned at least twice the Law Society of Scotland briefing document, which I have in my hand. It is a very useful and positive contribution to informing Members of all parties about the Bill. I will quote from it so that we are all clear about the context. In its general remarks, the Law Society of Scotland says:
“We recognise the necessity for this Bill”.
That conclusively states that the Bill is a necessity. Does the hon. Lady accept that?
Kirsty Blackman
Because the UK Government decided that we are leaving the customs union and we will therefore need our own customs procedures, it is sensible, given that it was an entirely EU competence, for the UK to create its own customs framework. However, if the UK Government had done what we suggested and remained part of the customs union, the Bill would not be necessary. Although the Law Society of Scotland says that the Bill is necessary because of the decisions of the UK Government, it raises several concerns. I ask the Minister to read the briefing, which suggests a number of amendments, particularly on consultation.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), has my hon. Friend seen the briefing from the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance? It says:
“These proposals are much weaker than we have in the EU (and also weaker than those of most other Trading Nations). Weaker remedies cost jobs.”
Just because we have legislation—and bad legislation—it does not make what is happening a good thing.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks for us on international trade. She is right about trade remedies and I will come on to that specific point later.
Although the Bill is general, it is also wide ranging. I want to consider some of the issues relating to HMRC that the Minister mentioned earlier. The new CDS software is set to replace CHIEF—customs handling of import and export freight—the current system, in 12 short months. The Public Accounts Committee report in November stated:
“It would be catastrophic if HMRC’s new customs system, the Customs Declaration System (CDS), is not ready in time and if there is no viable fall-back option.”
It expects the number of customs declarations that HMRC must process each year to increase fivefold. Every time I and other hon. Members have questioned the Minister about this, he has been particularly blasé and unflustered about the tight timetable. The PAC also said that HMRC’s timetable is incredibly tight, given the amount of work still to do. HMRC will only know by July 2018 whether the system works as intended—I am surprised that HMRC will only know by July 2018, but the Minister thinks it will all be fine—which is only one month before the first traders start to use it, and gives very little time to take remedial action if anything goes wrong.
It is vital for our exporting businesses that the customs software works. We have consistently raised concerns about this and we will continue to do so. I appreciate that the Minister is nodding, but we will keep the pressure on to ensure that it happens.
Hannah Bardell
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. How much faith does she have in the Government and the implementation of the software programme, given the disaster they are having with the change programme and the closure of HMRC offices?
Kirsty Blackman
UK businesses have several questions about the capacity of HMRC to deal with the volume of customs declarations, and many businesses will have to make customs declarations for the first time. Businesses are already concerned about the loss of the HMRC hotline that they could previously access. One business contacted HMRC with a query and received a reply seven months later. Seven months is not an appropriate timescale. If HMRC cannot respond to complaints and questions timeously now, how will it do so in the future after a fivefold increase in the need for customs declarations?
In a post-Brexit scenario, businesses will—in an incredibly short timescale and whether we have a trade deal or not—have to come to terms with new customs software. They will also have to come to terms with a new system of customs duties, ways to export and other massive changes. That means an incredible amount of uncertainty. When drafting the Bill, the Government could have been clearer about how the new customs system would work, therefore getting rid of a level of uncertainty. I know that they do not yet have a trade deal, but if they had been able to implement the software earlier or be clearer about how the processes will work, it would have been better for businesses.
Broadly speaking, businesses have been in favour of the replication of the Union customs code in the future. I mentioned the issue of rules of origin, and the Minister also referred to it earlier. There is a major problem with those rules. The Minister said that they should be determined by the UK Government in negotiation. As a side note, the current UCC, at 61.3, contains options for declaring origin. That does not appear to have been replicated in the primary legislation, and the British Chambers of Commerce, on behalf of its members, want to see certainty for the future on that matter.
Major problems are brewing on rules of origin, especially the duration of any transition agreement that the UK Government strike. At the very least, the Government need to negotiate interim free trade agreements with countries that the EU currently has FTAs with. Many of those trade deals allow UK companies to export because of the recognition of cumulation with EU content. For example, the trade deal that the EU has with South Korea, for example, says that
“a car will be originating in the EU if no more than 45% of the value of the inputs have been imported from outside Korea or the EU to manufacture it.”
So if the UK—in this brilliant scenario with its amazing negotiating team—manages to convince Korea, at least temporarily, to replicate the trade deal that it has with the EU, changing all references to “EU” to “UK”, for example, that will be all well and good, but it will not solve the issue of cumulation for many of our businesses. Take for example a widget that is created in the UK. It may have many parts from other EU countries. It may have 60% EU content, which it needs in order to be exported to South Korea. However, it may not have 60% UK content. Under the previous rules of origin system that we had as part of the EU, that worked fine and the widget could be exported to Korea. But if Korea says that it wants the widget to have 60% UK content, it will be a major issue for businesses which will no longer be able to export those widgets.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I am afraid that I am not very familiar with our trade level with South Korea. I wonder whether the hon. Lady has picked a particularly obscure example to demonstrate her point, rather than looking at the countries we will do substantial trade with in the future. I hope that I will be able to get some more information on that point.
Kirsty Blackman
I picked South Korea and car manufacturing because the percentage is particularly high. However, many other areas of trade and exports have percentage requirements. Because we have not needed rules of origin for products from the UK—we have been able to add all the EU content—it has not been a consideration for businesses. They have been able to export if they can prove that a certain percentage is from the EU. It is an issue not only for the trade deal with Korea, but for all sorts of trade deals that the UK has because it is part of the EU. The concern is not that we will not be able to do new trading, but that our current trading will become a major issue as of March 2019, if we do not get the appropriate rollover and grandfathering in place.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Perhaps my hon. Friend will join me in correcting the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), as South Korea is very important for Scottish trade. As a result of the EU-negotiated deal, whisky goes to South Korea on a 0% tariff. The former chief executive of the Scottish Whisky Association has expressed the view that without the heft of the EU, Scottish whisky—the UK’s biggest export—would not have had the benefit of that deal.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate that information.
There are so many technical issues that will have a major impact on jobs and manufacturing in UK. When I have asked the Government about this, the answers I received were pretty fluffy. I have asked about cumulation—mainly outside the Chamber—as it is a major issue that the UK Government have not taken seriously enough. It has been raised especially by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. If hon. Members look at how many times cumulation has been mentioned in the Chamber, they will find that it is very few.
Vicky Ford
I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning the incredibly important matter of cumulation. It is by cumulation that a British car that has components from other parts of Europe manages to be sold to third countries under existing agreements. My recollection is that the Minister said that the Department for International Trade would look to continue having agreement on cumulation, and that the Bill will give it the legal tools to continue such negotiations. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Bill is necessary as an enabling package to allow us to have a customs relationship with Europe and other parts of the world in the future?
Kirsty Blackman
I think that we should remain in the customs union and the single market, because then we would not have any of these issues. I appreciate that the Minister says that the Government are looking at this, but I am trying to make it clear how important this matter is, and I hope that I have been able to do that in my discussion of cumulation.
Richard Graham
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) raised the importance of the EU FTA deal with South Korea—indeed, it adds some £2 billion to our exports every year—but the interesting question is why the EU has been able to make free trade agreements only with South Korea and Vietnam. What about the rest of Asia? Does the SNP believe that sufficient progress has been made in expanding our trade, especially in Scottish whisky, across the whole of Asia, or could the process perhaps have been done more energetically and dynamically by Britain making its own free trade deals?
Kirsty Blackman
There are EU FTAs with many countries and we trade through them. Because the EU has such a large market, it is able to strike much better free trade agreements than the UK Government will be able to strike for their much smaller market. That is just the reality.
On the capacity of HMRC, I also want to talk about the issue of authorised economic operators, which was mentioned a lot in the customs White Paper. Relying on the AEO system causes a bit of a problem, as the UK is just not that good at either promoting or administering it. Some of the rules applied by HMRC are nearly impossible for many of the smaller operators to meet, such as the requirement we have heard about that the person who is in charge of customs in organisations has three years of customs experience. Some of our businesses have been trading exclusively with the EU, so they cannot meet that requirement very easily. HMRC must look at this as a matter of priority, and particularly consider the situation in Austria, where it takes less than three months for an initial AEO application to go through. Germany has increased the number of authorised economic operators incredibly successfully. The UK Government could benefit from looking at those countries when they consider making changes. It is not about making the regime slacker and enabling more people to jump through the hoops for AEOs; it is about making the process of applying for and getting AEO certification more accessible and streamlined. I know the UK Government have had representations on this matter, and I urge Ministers to consider them and act as soon as they can. We need to get the system in place as soon as possible so that companies can register and receive the certification to become AEOs in advance of the exit date.
As we heard earlier, there is also an HMRC capacity and streamlining problem in the area of VAT. That was also raised in the media recently in the context of the British Retail Consortium’s concerns. The changes to the VAT regime could create major cash-flow problems for businesses, and they might have to restructure or take on burdensome new cash-flow loans. The BRC says that there is no impact assessment produced by the Treasury about the costs of these measures in terms of additional compliance burdens for business, nor about what the costs of HMRC collecting and refunding these upfront costs would be. It seems that there is a real problem and that the required VAT changes have been pretty badly thought through.
I also want to raise the issue of virtual free trade zones. The Bill contemplates only physical free trade zones, but a virtual zone would allow businesses along the supply chain to benefit from simplifications and facilitations without having to incur the time and expense of individual applications, such as with inward processing relief. The British Chambers of Commerce has requested that the Treasury consider the possibility of including virtual free trade zones in its powers relating to designated free zones.
In the context of HMRC, I also want to mention import VAT on gifts from the EU, which I have spoken about before. Folk will be shocked when they get a bill because they have received a gift worth more than £39 from somebody in the EU. Such a system currently applies if people get a gift from elsewhere in the world, but the Government are suggesting that it should also apply in the case of goods from the EU. That is a major concern, because as there has been free movement and people have been able to live in other European countries, it is perfectly feasible that an awful lot of people will have family members in other EU countries and therefore will be likely to receive gifts of a value of over £39. I want to make it absolutely clear that if and when people start getting those bills, they will be totally caused by Brexit, leaving the customs union, and the proposed changes to VAT.
Trade remedies have been mentioned, particularly by Labour Members. Some of the evidence about the matter that the International Trade Committee received last year was concerning. The EU currently has anti-dumping and countervailing measures that would normally be expected to still be in place after Brexit day, such as a five-year measure that was put in place two years ago, meaning that it will have about two years to run at the time we leave the EU. Bernardine Adkins of the law firm Gowling WLG told the Committee that
“it won’t be possible to grandfather the measures, otherwise you will face problems with the World Trade Organization.”
If she is right, we have a pretty significant problem, especially because the call for evidence the Government issued at the end of November seems to suggest they do not know which trade remedies are relevant to UK companies. If the UK Government have to create a trade remedies agency, get it up and running, and furnish it with details that have not been provided in this Bill—how to conduct investigations, how subsidies are to be defined, how to assess if a UK industry has been injured, how to define a UK industry, and how to calculate the level of duties and guarantees needed to rectify the injury caused—and if they have do all that before putting in place even the trade remedies that currently exist, we have another problem.
UK Steel has been particularly vociferous in its criticism of this aspect of the Bill. It says that the chief and overriding concern is that schedules 4 and 5 to the Bill, concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures respectively, contain very little detail. It goes on to point out that for many of our major trading partners, including the EU and US, such issues are covered by primary legislation. The UK Government have chosen to deal with this through not primary legislation, but secondary legislation. That is yet another concern that we have about the Bill. The Bill does not even have the level of detail of the WTO agreements, so if the Government had included those, the Bill would have been substantially better.
The lesser duty rule is also a significant issue, as the UK Government are looking to go in that direction at a time when the EU is looking to move away from it. This is a concern for us, and for UK manufacturers and jobs in particular.
I and my party have general concerns about the loss of the customs union and the single market. We also have very specific concerns, which echo the views of businesses, about aspects of this Bill. A Fraser of Allander Institute report last year said that 134,000 jobs in Scotland are supported by trade with the EU, and Brexit threatens to cost our economy in Scotland £11 billion a year by 2030 and to result in many fewer jobs. The OECD highlighted in June last year:
“In case Brexit gets reversed by political decision…the positive impact on growth would be significant.”
There are major issues about tariffs if we leave the single market. The EU average tariff on imports from outside the EU was 5.2% in 2014. The average tariff on food was 15%. Skimmed milk exported into the EU from outside the single market attracts a tariff of 74%. If our organisations get hit by these tariffs when they are exporting—if we end up outside the EU single market and customs union as part of a no-deal scenario —we will not just have the problems I have mentioned about issues with the Bill, trade remedies and how HMRC will cope with all this. All these things are an incredible problem. Would it not be better and easier, and would it not be in the economic interests of everyone in this country, if the UK Government were to say, “Actually, we are going to stay in the single market and the customs union”?
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
This debate and the presentation of this Bill are incredibly timely. Before Christmas, at the European Council meeting, the Prime Minister moved our negotiations on leaving the EU on to the second phase, with the agreement of the other member states, and we will now discuss the future relationship and the future trading relationship. It is important that, so soon after that Council meeting, although there is still a lot more to be done and negotiated in terms of how that relationship will work, we are debating a vital piece of enabling legislation that gives the Government the legal power to implement whatever is negotiated.
We could have a different scenario, where the Government could negotiate without any legal basis to implement the agreement. They could just negotiate on the basis that they would then have to bring legislation forward at some point in the future. There is no guarantee there would be the time to do that, and it would be a rather strange process to go through. It is far better that the Government are able to pass enabling legislation that gives us the legal authority to implement what they negotiate. At least then, when negotiating with the Europeans, they know that we can implement what we negotiate and we will not be left high and dry because we have run out of time.
Sammy Wilson
That is an important point, and it has been reflected in the speeches from Members from two Opposition parties. Does not the hon. Gentleman therefore find it rather odd that on one hand they talk about urgency, yet on the other hand they have tabled motions saying we should not proceed with this Bill on Second Reading?
Damian Collins
Absolutely. If we waited until every question that has been posed today could be answered—if, indeed, they can all be answered—before we introduced legislation, we could end up with no time for scrutiny or debate, or to implement the legislation in the first place. We can enter into the negotiations on our future trading relationship with any sort of purpose only if it is clear that we have in place the legal frameworks to implement whatever we agree and only if the EU negotiators can see that the UK has the legal basis to implement its own regime and requirements, whatever the trade deal or scenario.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) presented a compelling amount of detail in her speech. It is tempting to lay out all the difficulties and say that there is no point in introducing legislation until we have an answer to all the problems that seem insurmountable, but that would be entirely the wrong way to go about it. We need to make sure that the enabling legislation is in place. It can also be tempting—I say this as someone who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU—to rerun all the arguments that were made during the referendum, as if the referendum had not happened, but it did happen and the country voted to leave the EU. It is now our responsibility to put in place the legal framework that enables the Government to negotiate so that we can put in place the best possible deal. It is far better that we do that now than in a year’s time.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I do not know whether my hon. Friend agrees, but the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), in which she highlighted some important issues relating to cumulation and other matters, is an example of why the Bill is such a good part of the process. It is giving people the opportunity to highlight important issues for the Government.
Damian Collins
Absolutely, and that is the spirit in which the comments made by the vast array of trade organisations and businesses that are seeking to engage in the process should be interpreted. They are giving us notice of the issues that they believe we need to get right for their sectors. That does not mean that there is a concern that we will not get those things right, but they are right to flag up the things that we have to get right.
I was particularly pleased to hear the Financial Secretary say in his opening remarks that the Government intend to establish a system of frictionless trade at our major ports and other major places of trade with the EU. That is very important for my constituency in Kent, just as it is incredibly important for Northern Ireland. We need to ensure that trade can flow freely.
Ministers from the Department for International Trade will be working hard not only to put in place good trade deals that continue the free trade agreements we currently have with other countries as a consequence of our membership of the EU, but to negotiate trade agreements with other countries around the world. Such agreements will be incredibly important for our future success, but there is something about trade that is rather inevitable: countries tend to trade a lot with other countries to which they are near, because the cost of such trade is obviously far lower. There is a reason why we trade more with Belgium than with Brazil—although I wish we could trade more with Brazil—and that is that Belgium is very nearby. The cross-channel routes and the routes across the border in Northern Ireland are fundamental for our economic success. That is where frictionless trade really matters so that people can move their goods quickly and speedily. In many businesses, particularly those that work in food or with cut flowers and other perishable goods, the quick, “just in time” movement of goods is vital. Businesses on both sides of those borders will be affected equally.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) talk about the initiative he will be undertaking with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) to bring a Wrightbus down to London. I visited the Wrightbus factory in Ballymena, where the company makes a fantastic product that has become an icon of the London streets. Although the Wrightbus Boris buses do not operate on continental Europe, I urge my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to continue their journey down to my constituency and through the channel tunnel, because it is so important to maintain the flows of trade not only between the countries of the UK but between the UK and continental Europe. A third of the trade of Warrenpoint port in Northern Ireland runs from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, into mainland UK and on to continental Europe. We need to keep trade running frictionlessly through all those points.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
People could not disagree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but in the real world at some point we are going to face tariffs, whether it is outside his constituency, on continental Europe or around the rest of the world. If we want a clue about that, we should look at the recent actions of Donald Trump’s Administration in relation to Bombardier. Food supply chains could also be threatened.
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Manufacturing is such an important part of the economy of Coventry, where his constituency is. Tariffs are important. Of course, we want a free trading environment among the countries with which we trade, not only in Europe but around the world. I looked back at one of Margaret Thatcher’s speeches—I am sure the hon. Gentleman is just as keen a student of those speeches as I am—to see how she made the case for the single market to businesses before it was created. She rightly highlighted that, although trade without tariffs is obviously important, what is much more important is getting rid of artificial barriers to trade, such as the restriction of goods from markets because they are not seen to comply with certain standards or the creation of artificial delays that can make trade in goods that need to be moved quickly uneconomic. It is just as important to get trading agreements and the flow of trade right as it is to get the tariff situation right.
Stephen Kerr
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech in favour of frictionless, free and fair trade. I hope he agrees that, as we go through the Brexit process, it is important that nothing is done to create any barriers to the internal operation of the UK market, by which I mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Frictionless trade is just as important between Northern Ireland and Great Britain as it is on the island of Ireland. It is vital to the economies of the island of Ireland and Great Britain and to everyone who lives and works on the island of Ireland and in Great Britain. As I said earlier, because of our proximity and the integrated nature of so many of our businesses, that trade is so important, and it is vital to the protection of so many jobs. There should be no artificial borders in the Irish sea, and nor should there be borders that create friction on the island of Ireland or with the continent of Europe across the English channel.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that is sometimes overlooked in these debates: it is vital for the Irish economy that there is no line of demarcation or border on the Irish sea, because its main market for either the sale or the transit of goods is Great Britain. If we simply talk about the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, we miss the point: there has to be integration among all the islands.
Damian Collins
That is absolutely right. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a third of the goods processed through Warrenpoint port in Northern Ireland come from the Republic of Ireland, so it would do great damage to the economy of the island of Ireland were artificial barriers to be put in place. The same is true for goods that move through what is effectively the Great Britain land bridge to the continent of Europe. A large amount of goods from the Republic of Ireland are exported to continental Europe through ports such as Dover, as well as through the channel tunnel, and it is vital for so many businesses and for the free flow of trade that they are not treated as goods being imported from a third country but allowed to flow freely just as they currently do.
It is important that we make sure not only that we get the tariff regime and the rules of trade right, but that part of our preparedness is about ensuring that we have the right physical infrastructure alongside the enabling legislation that the Government are seeking to pass. I was really pleased to hear the Chancellor announce £3 billion in the Budget to help the UK to prepare the physical infrastructure it will need for trade. Technological solutions can be put in place to make sure that trade can flow without restrictions and frictionlessly at the key trading points and the key points of entry to other markets, but the infrastructure also needs to be put in place now.
It is particularly important for my constituents in Kent that we provide a long-term solution to deal with issues such as Operation Stack. If trade is being held up, for whatever reason—be it bad weather in the channel or strike action in one of the French ports—we need the physical infrastructure in place to keep Kent’s roads open. As part of our preparations for a future in which we can keep goods and services flowing freely around our key points of trade, it is important that we have in place the right physical infrastructure. That includes a commitment to deliver the Operation Stack relief lorry park in Kent. I was pleased that the Financial Secretary was able to confirm before Christmas that the £250 million that the Government had earmarked for the delivery of that vital piece of infrastructure is still there, and I hope we will see good progress on the design this year. Not only can that relief lorry park be considered as a piece of infrastructure for dealing with Operation Stack, which can happen at any time—it has happened while we have been a member of the EU and could happen again in future—but that physical infrastructure will be there in case we need it because of delays in the movement of goods.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a good speech in which he is, of course, advocating free trade, in which we all believe—or at least Conservative Members do. Does he, like me, see the profound irony in our discussing how we are going to have to have new technologies, put in new systems and do all these other hugely complicated, very expensive things, in order to cope with leaving the customs union, even though we believe in and want free trade? Does he not think it would be much more simple and sensible just to stay in the customs union?
Damian Collins
My right hon. Friend makes a compelling point, but we have to accept that other political issues are being considered alongside the management of trade: our general future relationship with the European Union as a partner European continental country, but not as a member of the EU itself; whether we should have arrangements whereby the level of regulatory alignment is such that we effectively become a satellite state—a client state—of the European Union and not an independent one; and the extent to which we have to fully comply with and implement rules that we have no further part in designing in future. That is what creates difficulties around membership of the customs union and the single market. As she knows as well, the issue of membership of the single market also comes alongside considerations around the issue of free movement of persons as it is defined now.
If there is a way, through negotiation, to resolve those difficulties and to keep a system of trade that we have got used to and that works so well for our economy, without any deviation from the current system at all, and to deliver the other political objectives that people voted for in the referendum, I will welcome that. However, what we are talking about here is making sure that we prepare, both through the laws and the physical infrastructure, for a different scenario whereby, if we are not able through negotiation to replicate what we have now, we have a system in place that can deliver something that is just as good.
There are many unanswered questions because that process is still being negotiated, but, as I said at the start of my remarks, it is far better that we have the debate about what we want the system to look like now, at the same time as giving the Government the legal power to negotiate and implement what they want in future. Now is the right time to be having that debate. I am sure that there will be plenty of other opportunities for the House to debate the specifics of the deal as we progress through the negotiations this year. But now is the right time to be having this debate.
As I have said, maintaining a system of free trade is clearly what we all want and what we want to see delivered. We need to ensure that we have the legal infrastructure in place and invest in the physical infrastructure, so that we can implement the deal that we have, and in particular keep frictionless trade on the island of Ireland and at our key points of trade in Kent —at the channel tunnel and at the port of Dover—with continental Europe.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me start by commending the work of the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance, an organisation that is being serviced in a secretariat format by the Ceramics Confederation in my constituency. Working with a number of other trade bodies and trade unions, it has put together comprehensive work to try to make the Bill better. It is not seeking to torpedo the Bill, or to say that the status quo is what we should have. It has genuinely tried to engage to highlight the practical problems with the Bill and to propose solutions that it knows, both as workers and as employers, will benefit its manufacturing industry. I just wanted to put that on the record.
I wish to commend the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for her speech, which covered, although in some depth, a number of quite technical points. This is where we are getting to in the Brexit negotiations: the time of painting in primary colours has almost gone, and we are now talking about the individual details that mean so much to our constituents. In my constituency, in Stoke-on-Trent, in the heart of the potteries, no more broadly will the impact of trade remedies and a proper customs arrangement be felt than in the ceramics industry.
In my constituency, around 5,000 jobs are directly related to manufacturing. Across the city, there are 15,000 such jobs, and even more when we tie in the supply chains and support services that make those industries flourish. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you go to any decent hotel around the world, to our own Tea Room, or to any high-class restaurant and turn over the plate, you will undoubtedly see, stamped with pride on the back of that piece of ceramic, “Made in Stoke-on-Trent” by Steelite, Churchill or Dudson. Those companies have been an ambassador for British business around the world for many years.
Only today in our local newspaper, The Sentinel, Jon Cameron from Steelite noted that 75% of every product that he makes is exported around the world. Therefore, the free trade arrangements that we have around the world, some of which are secured through the European Union, are important because they are about jobs in our constituency and jobs in our city. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) asked about South Korea. South Korea is one of the largest emerging markets for British ceramics in the world, and we are increasingly selling it more and more tableware and tiles than anywhere else. It is important that we recognise that countries that may seem obscure for some parts of the broader trade arrangements have huge impacts on smaller manufacturing areas where exports are becoming an increasingly important part of what we do.
What I wish to focus on today is the arrangements for market trade remedies. At the moment, the ceramics industry has a certain level of protection via the EU’s market protection arrangements, which affect tableware and tiles. Both are being looked at right now. They are being renewed through the European Parliament, so they are being scrutinised and looked at. The intention is that, where we know that there are market distortions caused by non-market economy countries such as China and Russia, the playing field is levelled.
We talk about free trade, but we should also be talking about fair trade. It is not fair on British manufacturing if Chinese companies are able to produce below-market value, cheap, low-quality tableware, import it into the UK, undermine the local manufacturing base and then distort the market and get away with it. Such practices cause job losses in Stoke-on-Trent and do serious long-term damage to the local market and the local industry. They also mean that, essentially, we are handing over domestic production to Chinese companies. What happens then? Once those companies have driven local producers out of the market, they put up their own prices, and suddenly there is no alternative. The next time I go on holiday, I do not want to turn over my plate and see that it is not made in Stoke-on-Trent. For me, that would be a symbol that we have got it wrong in terms of how we approach British manufacturing.
One in seven of the jobs in my constituency is linked to manufacturing, so making sure that we have those correct protections in place is vital. Across my neighbouring constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and in Kidsgrove, nearly 19% of the workforce are involved in manufacturing. There are still parts of our country where manufacturing is the fundamental base of the work that we do. Making sure that we have those correct protections in place is vital to ensuring that we still have a manufacturing base that we are proud of in Britain.
Under schedule 4, the Bill will provide a number of mechanisms for the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance, but, unfortunately, they are lacking. This is not a political point; it is a point of fact. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North pointed out, they do not include a system for how we calculate injury from non-market economy countries. They do not point out how we calculate injury. The Bill commits us to the mandatory lesser duty rule, which is something that the EU is moving away from. It is looking at a conditional lesser duty rule.
The lesser duty rule basically says that, if we can demonstrate that there is injury to our market because of subsidy by a non-market economy country’s activities, we will only seek to remedy the lesser of those two injuries. We may still have goods being imported into our country below market value, distorting our market in a way that is unfair and we will be happy to accept that because it is the lesser of the two duties. That is fundamentally wrong. It is something that the EU is moving away from. We could easily have adopted the wording that was chosen by the EU and put it into the Bill, because it was supported by this Government in the European Council and by our MEPs across the piece.
Mr Jim Cunningham
This is not necessarily on ceramics, but when it comes to research and development for industry, the United States uses the defence budget. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is what we are up against if we pull out of the single market?
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me down a particular course of discussion around single market membership, which I do not really wish to address as part of the Bill, but I do understand his point. In this Bill, not only do we have a set of Trade Remedies Authority procedures that are not particularly well defined and an attempt to wed ourselves to a mandatory lesser duty rule, we are also seeking to include an economic interest test—again, something that very few countries use. The only time we would see either a public interest test or an economic interest test is when we have multinational organisations such as the EU. We will not be in that position, yet we will be wedding ourselves to an extra layer of bureaucracy and complication to our trade remedy process that does not necessarily give the best outcome for British industry.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of the areas where this Parliament and this House should have some right of scrutiny, but where that is being brushed aside. This will all be done through written ministerial guidance, secondary legislation and statutory instruments. There is nothing in the Bill that immediately gives this House and all Members present the opportunity to properly define what we want to see regarding market and trade remedies.
There are a number of matters, which I am sure will come up during Second Reading of the Trade Bill tomorrow, that relate to the membership of the Trade Remedies Authority, the way in which it will be run and its budget. There are also questions around the cost of the investigations and who will be responsible for that cost. In the EU process at the moment, the trade itself makes up a good proportion of the cost, but it does so knowing that whatever remedy it gets out will more than offset the cost of the remedy process. There is no guarantee that that is the case for whatever system we set up once we are outside the customs union and the single market. That could simply result in a situation where industry does not take the risk—where it does not want to put the funding in place to do the investigation and to work out the dumping and injury levels because it does not know what they will look like beforehand. Therefore, any remedy would be of no benefit to the industry once it has made up those initial costs, so it simply will not do it. We will have a situation where we are not able to protect British industry and British business because the system is complicated and opaque.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is no longer in his place, but he has agreed to meet the British Ceramic Confederation to talk about some of the issues I have raised. I am grateful to him for doing so, and I hope that he will hear sense in the comments made this evening. When we leave the EU and come out of the customs union and the single market, there are a number of things that we can do to strengthen British business, put us in a better position and demonstrate to the world that Britain is still a manufacturing nation. We still make things. Nowhere is that more evident than in Stoke-on-Trent, where we make things and sell things of great beauty and high art around the world. We can continue do that, but only if we put the protections in place. Once we are outside the EU, we will have the freedoms and flexibilities to put in place the protections we want.
Having read this Bill, I fear that the Government are trying to come up with the lowest level of protection that they possibly can, which is of interest economically to only a few groups of people and whereby the Minister himself would have the ability to override future decisions. Therefore, I support the reasoned amendment; I hope that the Government have heard my comments; and I look forward to scrutinising this legislation further.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I concur with many of his remarks on the ceramics industry, although I am the MP for Denby Pottery, so we may have a slight disagreement on the premier manufacturer of such products. Perhaps we should move swiftly on.
I welcome this important Bill. It is absolutely right that the Government have brought it forward at a relatively early stage in the Brexit process, and it is important that it clears this hurdle tonight. If we are going to leave the EU’s customs union when we leave the EU, it is a simple fact that we will need to have our own customs arrangements and rules in place for that day. By doing so, we can keep collecting the tariffs we get from non-EU imports. As well as keeping that revenue, we can keep important trade matters flowing and the important reliefs in place.
A Bill like this can be quite frustrating because there are lots of interesting customs issues that we would like to debate, such as what the EU deal and any new tariffs will or will not look like, what the administration process will be and how we will fix the Irish question—if we can perhaps refer to it as that—but this Bill does not answer all those questions. Instead, it puts in place the architecture that we can then use to answer those questions when we know what our deal with the EU will be. It is right that this Bill goes through because we need to get all the nitty-gritty detail of our new customs process in place as early as we can, so that it can be understood by all the businesses out there that will need to comply with it and all the software producers that will need software in place. A lot of people will need to be trained on the new duty codes, including which ones apply to their products, how they comply with all these rules, what software systems will be needed and how they will interact with the new HMRC ones. All those things have to be done as early as possible if this is going to work on the day that we finally leave.
I have some comments on specific parts of the Bill. I was not really trying to find in the Bill the detail of what the customs rules will be and exactly what the text says. I think that what we have pretty much mirrors the EU customs rules, and we are just creating our own regime to do much the same thing. That is probably the spirit of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and I appreciate we have to do this as a separate Bill for ways and means purposes. Most people who operate in this area will understand the mechanics that the Government are trying to produce, but what we want to understand is how we can make complying with the burdens of that as easy, straightforward and cheap as possible for the businesses that have to do it. A key part of that is the authorised economic operator system.
When the Public Accounts Committee took evidence on authorised economic operators, it found that about 604 businesses in the UK had that status. Now, that is not a very large proportion of the existing importers that could be using that status. It is about a 10th of the number that Germany has. There needs to be a real impetus during the passage of this Bill and afterwards to ensure that HMRC is doing everything it can to get businesses signed up to that process, so that we have as many of those operators in place as we possibly can when we really need them. That will help those businesses, but it will also help HMRC because it will know which businesses they do not have to check and which will be compliant, rather than having to do risk assessments on them all. What is not entirely clear in the Bill is the status of a business that is already an AEO. If someone has been approved under the EU regime, will that approval grandfather into our regime, or will they have to reapply for it? If someone signs up now, will they be in the same position? I think we should be very clear that if we think a business has that status now, there is no reason why they cannot have it going forward as well.
The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which I serve on, has been doing quite a lot of work on customs issues, including visiting Switzerland to see how the border with the EU works. We saw that we can actually minimise the amount of declarations needed if we can make the systems mesh, synchronise and talk to each other. We do not want to see a business making a declaration in the UK for the export of something and then making an equivalent declaration in France when that is imported into the EU system. If a system is designed so that businesses can make one declaration for both regimes, it will halve the work and make things a lot easier. I cannot quite see in the Bill a provision whereby we can take the power to create a system that talks to the other regime in that way. I cannot see a measure whereby, for example, a business could make a declaration in France and where we could then get that data and deem that business to have complied, and vice versa—if a company makes an export declaration here, can that be passed on to the French? Clauses 25 and 26 are about co-operation, but I hope that in drawing up these rules the Government have thought through how we can get a simplified, joined-up system so that we can minimise the amount of compliance we need for those compliant businesses.
Clause 27 is an interesting provision, as it will give the Government the power to create fees in connection with the import process. Perhaps the Government could just reassure us that they are not planning on charging an import fee for the pleasure of complying with these new rules; that might be an unnecessary cost to trade. Will the Government be clear exactly where they see the role of fees and what they think those fees might be? I just cannot see that every time someone imports a widget, they should pay HMRC a fee for that pleasure.
There was some debate on clause 31 in the opening remarks. That clause is about forming customs unions. I have some concerns about what the Government are trying to achieve here. I can see that it is attractive to have the power in place, if we want to create a customs union with our overseas territories as we all leave the EU at the same time in our various different ways; I have no particular objection to that. I can also see that when we do a transitional deal with the EU, we want to be able to bring it into force effectively. But we are supposed to be agreeing the transitional deal by March, which will give us a year to put it into place before we actually leave. I am not quite sure why we need such a broad-ranging power in the Bill because, as far as I can tell, there is no time limit or geographic limit on this power. In theory, we could do a customs union with the trans-Pacific trade area in 25 years’ time, and it could go through on the affirmative resolution process. I am not sure that that is what we intend.
Customs unions are generally quite significant and powerful things, where we agree not only not to charge tariffs on the other side and vice versa, but to have a common set of external tariffs. Indeed, there is a provision in clause 31 that says we will accept that when a Government change dates on a tariff, that change can apply in the UK. Now, I suspect that we are not envisaging the Jersey Trade Minister setting our tariffs for us. I am guessing that that is aimed at some kind of EU arrangement.
If we do have a year to put in place a transitional provision, it would be better to do that in a considered way through primary legislation so we understand what it means rather than have it go through by some kind of parliamentary back-door process where we cannot talk about the detail or try to amend the substance. These things can be very significant. There can be large amounts of revenue at stake, or issues about which industries we choose to protect. We need to try to clarify exactly what the Government are trying to do in clause 31, and exactly how long this power needs to exist for and what geographical extent we are prepared to give to it.
On the Irish customs question, we cannot expect anything in this Bill to look at that specifically. One of the proposals that we have come up with for fixing the customs border is to exempt all micro, small and medium-sized businesses from needing to comply with the customs rules, presumably so that they would not need to do the declarations or pay any tariffs on goods going across the Irish border. However, I cannot see where in the Bill the Government have taken the power to do that. One could argue that it is covered by the reliefs in clause 19, but is that really the solution that we are expecting in the Northern Ireland context? Perhaps the Government should sensibly take the power to deliver this in the Bill and make sure that it can be achieved if negotiated.
I have some final points on the VAT issue, which was raised earlier. It is clearly perfectly fair for importers from the EU to point out that they are going to be cash-flow disadvantaged compared with their current situation if they have to pay VAT immediately when they import the goods rather than on their next VAT return once they have processed the transaction. That would put them in the same position as somebody importing from outside the EU. It is encouraging that the Treasury, for once, is prepared to be generous in that situation and create a regime where those businesses may not face that cash-flow implication. We ought to think very carefully about whether we want to treat an import from France differently from one from the USA in this situation. Will this generosity on cash flow apply more widely than the EU?
A lot of the lobbying on this has come from the British Retail Consortium. Businesses in my constituency that trade with the large retailers tell me that they are being pretty brutally squeezed on the amount of credit that they have to give to those large retailers—up to 120 days in some cases. If the Government intend to create a targeted, generous regime to help the cash flow of people importing goods from outside the UK, perhaps they should make it available only to businesses that treat suppliers within the UK with some kind of fairness, to have a level playing field. It would be a bit crazy for it to be better for their cash flow to import goods from the EU than to buy them from the UK supplier round the corner. I hope that could be another stick to encourage large businesses that treat their small suppliers quite badly by saying, “Yes, we accept that there is an issue, but we will only let you have this cash-flow advantage if you’re behaving fairly to others in terms of their cash flow.”
I welcome this important Bill and hope it gets a speedy passage through the House.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to take the opportunity provided by this Bill to raise an important opportunity that could bring as many as 90,000 jobs to this country—and, in particular, many to my own constituency. It relates to part 2 of schedule 2 and can otherwise be referred to as the introduction of free ports.
Around the world there are approximately 3,500 free trade zones employing 66 million people across 135 countries. There are currently none in the UK. Conferring free trade status on a UK port would place it administratively outside of customs territory. It would mean that goods could be imported, manufactured or re-exported inside the free trade zone without incurring domestic customs duties or taxes, which is paid only on goods entering the domestic UK economy. As well as bringing benefits through customs taxes and duties, free zones also support economic activity through financial incentives such as research and development tax credits, regulatory flexibility, and tax reductions. They are recognised around the world as playing a major role in retaining, re-shoring and growing domestic manufacturing activity and boosting trade. In the US there are 250 free trade zones, and they also play a major role in the economies of Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates.
Ports are already a vital strategic asset for the UK, accounting for 96% of all trade volume and 75% of trade value. The free port concept builds on our maritime history and an existing UK strength. The creation of a free port would increase employment and economic activity in areas where economic need is high and could play a major role in rebalancing our London-centric economy. Of the country’s 30 largest ports, 17, including Teesside in my own constituency, are in the bottom quartile of local authorities in the index of multiple deprivation. I make no apology for lobbying for such a status on behalf of the port in my constituency. Teesport has strong structural advantages for being favoured for free port status. It has a deep-water facility providing lock-free access to the sea, with strong road and rail services. Teesport is versatile and adaptable. The facility handles 5,000 vessels and 40 million tonnes of cargo a year. The port is integral to the Teesside manufacturing complex, incorporating chemicals, engineering, renewable energy, and agri-tech. The South Tees development corporation is overseeing the former SSI site—the biggest industrial opportunity the UK has seen since the second world war. When the Government closed the steelworks in 2015 and 3,000 Teessiders lost their jobs, the Government promised to do all they could. On the Prime Minister’s most recent visit, she told us that we had to look to the future. Well, we are—the question is, are the Government?
The development corporation—the only one outside London—has set out its ambition to create 20,000 additional jobs in high-value manufacturing over a 25-year period, adding £1 billion in gross value added for the local economy. This would be substantially enhanced through the creation of a free port. Incorporating the development corporation area, together with the Teesport facility and in conjunction with adjacent industrial sites such as Wilton and North Shore, into a free port area would help the region to build on its current strengths in chemicals, steel, energy and logistics, and realise our vision to become the most attractive place in the country for high-value manufacturing.
Led by the north-east process industry cluster and the former hon. Member for Hartlepool, Teesside is the location of the largest integrated chemical complex in the UK and the second largest in western Europe in terms of manufacturing capacity. The sector has inputs to a range of other key industries such as aerospace, automotive, and life sciences. The sector is highly productive and competitive but faces a number of challenges such as increasing global competition, high operating costs, the need to attract investment from global parent companies, and skills shortages. A free port could be part of a range of policy solutions to maintain and enhance the attractiveness of investment in this sector in the UK and on Teesside. Free port status for Teesside could make the area the gateway of the north, rebalancing the economy and making the region’s manufacturing base more competitive and attractive.
This Bill provides an opportunity to establish the legislative basis to enable such a system to be set up in the UK, potentially giving a quick and powerful boost to the British economy as we go forward in Brexit negotiations. However, such a zone is not dependent on leaving the EU. Other member states have free ports, including the ports of Bremerhaven in Germany, Le Verdon in France, and Shannon in the Republic of Ireland. In fact, there are currently 85 free port zones within the European Union. Moreover, the Secretary of State is already empowered to designate free ports by statutory instrument under section 100A of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, which is still in force. Indeed, the UK itself had five free trade zones until 2012, at which point the statutory instruments that set them up expired, so the framework is in place and the opportunity is there. I hope that this Bill can clarify the situation. Part 2 of schedule 2 allows the Government to regulate on free ports. I hope that the Minister therefore agrees that this is the perfect moment to reopen the debate on free ports, to be bold, and potentially to create a new one—preferably on Teesside.
I conclude by asking the Minister the following questions. First, does he agree with the principle of free ports, and does he recognise the role they can play in driving and rebalancing our economy? Secondly, will the Government be using this Bill to amend the free port powers created by the Customs and Excise Management Act? If so, will they use the opportunity to bring forward powers to enable Teesport to become a free port or subject to special customs arrangements?
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
In following the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), I can only applaud her support for her local port.
I support this Bill. Above all else, as I said earlier and the Minister confirmed, it is an enabling Bill to create a post-Brexit functioning customs, VAT and excise regime. Because this is being done well ahead of the results of the negotiation, it does not predetermine the result. That necessarily disappoints those in this House who want the predetermined detail in order to see the extent to which the Bill suits their own vision of what our post-Brexit relationship should look like. In so doing, the Bill satisfies those for whom the Bill is intended—not politicians, but traders, exporters of goods and services, businesses and organisations, including universities and hospitals, with cross-border business in a wider sense—for we and, above all, they need to have in place the mechanisms for setting import duties, regulations, protections, dispute resolution procedures and so on, whatever the final trade and customs arrangements with the EU turn out to be.
That should be uncontroversial, but because the details are not in the Bill, Members are finding all their concerns and worries in their own imaginations. After a speech of some half an hour, for the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) it all boils down to the fact that she wants to stay in the current customs union with the European Union. For the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), it is about protecting the ceramics industry. With respect to him and to Stoke-on-Trent, however, no customs Bill can do that, for the customs Bill is about making arrangements for future import duties, not about defining the new technology and brilliant designs that the world admires and wants to own, which is what will determine the future of the ceramics industry there.
Stephen Kerr
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that without this Bill we will have the archetypal cliff edge that the Opposition parties go on and on about? By not supporting Second Reading, they risk creating the cliff edge that they are always going on about.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He brilliantly pre-empts the point I was about to make, which is that although some Opposition Members have described the uncertainty that they say the Bill will cause, the Bill will precisely help to avoid the cliff edge that all of us—but, above all, businesses—want to avoid. I thank him for his intervention.
The key is that the Bill will ensure that a customs regime is in place for cross-border business to flourish, whatever the results of the negotiations. To be honest, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) underestimated the importance of technology not just in business, but for our customs processes. Regardless of whether or not we had decided to leave the EU, replacing the existing customs system, CHIEF, with the new IT platform, CDS, will, although it comes with a caveat about new Government IT systems, help our customs regime—it is currently rated fifth out of 160 countries in the world for its efficiency by the World Bank—to maintain or improve our position. The trusted trader system used by Canada and Australia, for example, has obvious replicability for trade at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
At the same time, the Bill is not devoid of ideas. The earlier customs White Paper outlined the two key negotiating positions for the Government, the first being a streamlined option and the second being a new customs partnership. My own belief is that if our European partners—that is entirely the right word for members of an organisation with which we have 44% of our exports—prove pragmatic in their interpretation of the new partnership, I very much hope that option 2 will prove possible. This option would allow the UK to mirror EU customs arrangements and trade policies for goods that are eventually to be consumed within the EU—even if they are first used, as it were, in the UK—thereby ensuring that the right amount of EU duty is paid without introducing new customs processes between us. This would be a practical benefit from a new partnership that I very much hope will come forward from the negotiations.
Let me turn to the amendment. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) talked with some passion about the manufacturing jobs in his constituency—rather fewer, I have to tell him, than the 4,000 manufacturing jobs in Gloucester; we all have manufacturing as a key element of our constituency business. He has concerns about the Bill’s impact on manufacturing, and the amendment therefore raises three objections to the Bill, which I will come on to. At the same time, there is clearly a certain demand from Opposition Members for an internal Labour debate about their party’s position on the customs union. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) would like a special debate on whether the preference of the leading Opposition party is for a customs union or for the customs union, and I am sure others from the Scottish National party would add weight to his discussions on that subject.
The truth is that Labour’s objection to powers coming back to the UK because we are “denied any detail”—the hon. Member for Bootle used that phrase—is bizarre, given that the whole point of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) mentioned, is to avoid a cliff edge by putting in place the mechanisms needed, whatever the result of the negotiation, which has not yet started in detail. At the same time, Labour is complaining that the Bill gives powers back only to the Government, rather than to Parliament. In fact, of course, all the detail post-negotiation would come to Parliament through secondary legislation, on which all of us in this House would decide.
Mr Leslie
Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to look at clause 31(4) in relation to forming a customs union with the United Kingdom? He can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that that would necessarily come before Parliament. It would be done by Her Majesty through an Order in Council.
Richard Graham
On that specific detail, the hon. Gentleman may well be right, but, ultimately, Parliament will decide the shape of any future agreement.
Richard Graham
Let me respond to the intervention, if I may, and I will then come to my hon. Friend.
The key thing in all the arrangements for a future customs union is that the precise nature of its structure has not yet been decided. It is all still up for debate, and the Bill is therefore an enabling Bill that puts in place the future mechanisms.
Nigel Mills
I was just trying to help my hon. Friend. The answer is in clause 32(10), which states that the Order in Council cannot happen unless this House has approved the order first.
Richard Graham
Precisely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Everything comes back to this House.
The point about the options that the Government have set out and the new customs partnership is that this will have huge practical benefits. Let me give a couple of examples. We could apply our own tariffs to goods destined purely for the UK. For example, for mangoes from India and the Philippines, which are not really a competitive product with anything we grow in this country, there is no reason why the EU should determine what tariff we apply. However, if a basic bicycle was made in another part of the Commonwealth and then exported to the UK for further modifications for onward export to the EU, it would make absolute sense for us to mirror the EU trade and customs arrangements.
The future customs arrangements, which are being negotiated, will therefore have profound implications for our future trading opportunities, and the Bill provides the way forward and opens the door to success, whatever the outcome of the negotiations. That is why the Liberal Democrat amendment, seeking a guarantee that the UK’s trading relationships with the EU and the rest of the world are not damaged, is so bizarre. How can anything like that be guaranteed, particularly during a negotiation? That was doubtless the reason why the amendment was not selected for debate.
This evening, one Opposition party is concerned about guarantees while a negotiation is going on, and another—the main Opposition party—is complaining about being denied any detail about the same negotiation, which has not yet properly started, while a third has already decided, regardless of the results of that negotiation, that it is all a terrible mistake. This evening therefore provides us with an opportunity to back a Bill, which should be entirely uncontroversial politically, that enables the businesses and manufacturers in all our constituencies to know with certainty that, whatever the results of the negotiation, we will have in place the mechanisms for their future exports. It is precisely because the Bill is practical and flexible and because it caters for all outcomes, while making sure that there is no cliff edge, that all of us should support it this evening.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Bill has profound implications for our economy, for many of our constituents, and for businesses that operate in our constituencies. It gives the Government considerable powers to levy customs duties on goods coming from the European Union, which would be an incredibly damaging spiral for the British economy to enter into as it would not only affect employment opportunities and business costs, but put in jeopardy the stability of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The notion that the proposed duties will apply and that we will somehow also retain frictionless, uninspected borders is oxymoronic—it is not possible. Despite a rather cleverly worded phase 1 agreement between the Government and the European Union, in which they basically decided to kick the issue into the long grass to be determined later on, the question has not yet been resolved and the situation is incredibly serious.
The referendum ballot paper did not mention customs duties or VAT, and it certainly did not mention the customs union. That was not the subject of the question that the British public were asked. Perhaps some Government Members read something between the lines, or perhaps when they squinted in a particular way and stood on one foot they read something on the ballot paper that the rest of the country did not. The country has not voted to leave the customs union, yet the Government and the Prime Minister take it totally for granted that we should all naturally accept that outcome.
Stephen Kerr
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was conscious during the entirety of the referendum campaign. I certainly was and I can assure him and the House that there were frequent references to the definition of the European Union as a single marketplace and a customs union. In fact, that was how the EU came to be defined on television and in the debates. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was, but it was very clear that the British people knew exactly what leaving the European Union meant. To say otherwise is, frankly, to turn one’s back on the common sense of the British people.
Mr Leslie
Just because the hon. Gentleman asserts that it was very clear does not mean that that was the case. In fact, his own friend and colleague, Daniel Hannan, a Member of the European Parliament, was very clear that the single market was incredibly important and that no one proposed leaving it. Many other hon. Members said similar.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
It was also made quite obvious during the referendum campaign that £350 million a week would be spent on the NHS, but I do not think that has come to fruition either.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
The Prime Minister at the time was perfectly clear that leaving the European Union did indeed involve leaving the single market and the customs union. It is sophistic in the extreme to suggest that people did not mean to leave the European Union and its institutions when we voted to leave.
Mr Leslie
Oh, that’s right—he is not here anymore. I vaguely remember who the Prime Minister was at the time.
The ballot paper text is a matter of record for all to see. It asked whether we should remain in or leave the European Union, but it did not go into the details, because in a parliamentary democracy those sorts of details are naturally left to us. This is on our shoulders. We are accountable to our constituents for interpreting that referendum result and putting it into effect, always with an eye on protecting their best interests. That is our job—it is what we are elected to do.
Government Members may think that it is in their best interests to leave the customs union, but that was not on the ballot paper. I disagree with them. I do not think that leaving the customs union is in our best interests, and certainly not those of my constituents. We are talking about a potential impact on half the goods traded by the United Kingdom, as half our goods trade goes to the European Union. These are not inconsiderable issues. Some 2.5 million lorry journeys a year through Dover might be affected. Whole businesses have set up “just in time” business models, down to a matter of minutes, for how goods and components will be sourced throughout supply chains and how inventories will be sourced from across the whole European continent, but they now face being upended not only by the potential duties imposed by the Bill, but by other, non-tariff barriers including bureaucracy, additional form-filling, registrations and inspections. Goods coming in might have to go to one side, both at the port of departure and at the port of entry, to be checked for sanitary and phytosanitary compliance. There are all sorts of inhibitors to the free flow of goods. I and other Opposition Members are talking about free trade. That is what we should be standing up for, which is why this is an incredibly important issue.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This is not just about goods being physically sold in other European countries. Musicians who tour Europe face real uncertainty about whether their instruments and merchandise, whose sales a lot of bands rely on, will be viewed as imports into those countries. There is a lot of uncertainty about what will actually be classed as a good crossing a border.
Richard Graham
I know that the hon. Gentleman holds his views deeply and sincerely; colleagues of mine hold very different views equally sincerely. Surely the crucial thing for all of us, however, is that the Bill allows for any of those possible outcomes. It does not predetermine the result of the negotiations or determine whether the United Kingdom will have a future free trade agreement with the European Union that replicates almost completely the existing customs union. Therefore, surely we can agree tonight about the importance of having a mechanism in place that avoids the cliff edge that all the businesses in all of our constituencies want to avoid.
Mr Leslie
If only that were the case. In fact, that same point is raised in paragraph 9 on page 6 of the explanatory notes, which states:
“The Taxation…Bill does not presuppose any particular outcome from the UK’s negotiations with the EU.”
That is not true. The Government have absolutely presupposed that the customs union is off the table. It is the ultimate presupposition, if ever anyone wanted a definition. This Bill apparently does not allow us to stay in the customs union, but it should allow us to do so, because I happen to believe that there is a majority in this House of Commons for membership of the customs union. I have a little job of work to do to continue to persuade my own party’s Front Benchers of that particular point, but I will try my best to do so because I think they will eventually recognise that being part of the customs union is incredibly important for our economy not just in the transition period, but for the longer term. I believe that the numbers are here in the House of Commons to support that and that it will eventually be proven.
I am disappointed that the Government have tried to twist parliamentary procedure by deeming this measure to be a money Bill. It is Mr Speaker who will decide whether or not it is a money Bill, and I think he will do so at the end of this particular Commons procedure. The Government, though, in a slightly tricksy way, are putting through the Bill following a Ways and Means resolution. Why have they done that? They have gutted the Trade Bill and stuck everything they possibly can into what was the customs Bill so that it cannot be amended by the House of Lords. It is the most obvious trick in the book—rule 101 for a Minister. I have been around the block a number of times, and I have to tell the Minister that there are whole clauses in the Bill, such as clause 31, that are about the formation of a customs union. How is that a matter purely for a money Bill? It is absolutely an issue of public policy to do with our trading alliances that the other place should have every right to pass comment on. If it has advice and suggestions for this place, it should be allowed to amend the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. Is it not underlined by the fact that the Government’s programme motion neglects to state how many days’ scrutiny the Bill will receive in the Public Bill Committee, let alone on the Floor of the House, but does state that the Committee will be done by 1 February? If the Committee does not start for a week or a couple of weeks because the Finance Bill and other measures are going through, there will be an extraordinarily small amount of time for detailed scrutiny of a 56-clause Bill with numerous schedules that will potentially have serious impacts on our economy.
Mr Leslie
That is why I suspect that the other place will look at the truncated scrutiny. I tried to get this out of the Minister earlier—not the Minister before us, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It was not a Cabinet Minister who came to the Chamber to introduce the Bill, by the way, but I am told that a reshuffle might be going on, so perhaps the Chief Secretary or even the Chancellor are in negotiations. The junior Minister acquitted himself reasonably well at the outset—as well as he possibly could, given the line that was scripted for him to take—but I think that a Cabinet Minister should have presented a Bill of such scale and importance. It deserves proper scrutiny in this place, with the right number of Committee sittings, because otherwise the other place will have to do that job for us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mark Garnier)
I am happy to confirm that the Bill will have eight Committee sittings in the House of Commons.
Mr Leslie
I can only hope—fingers crossed—that I am selected for the Committee. I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will be keen to have me on it. I try my best to be as constructive as possible at all times, so I hold out great hope for that.
Part 1 of the Bill is very wide-ranging. My hon. Friends have made speeches about trade remedies in respect of anti-dumping and subsidy provisions. Perhaps the Minister will use his winding-up speech to cast a little more light on what the UK’s policy will be on competitive trade and, in particular, on subsidy issues. I know that Government Members have an interest in many aspects of trade with places such as China and other non-market economies. The question about subsidies is important, so I would like to hear a little more from the Government about what their policy stance will be. Will we cut and paste the existing EU approach or not?
A number of big decisions have to be made. When our constituents find out that we will have the power to raise or lower a particular duty, the widget manufacturers or whatever in our constituencies who might be prone to it, or whose competitors might be prone to it, will take great interest in contacting Members of Parliament to say, “Will you push the Government to raise this duty?” or, “Will you push Ministers to lower that duty?” This has the potential to fill our inboxes for decades to come.
Members of the European Parliament—we have sort of outsourced much of this policy to the EU for 40 years—have a number of scrutiny powers in respect of customs and excise and trade agreements that we will not have when those matters are brought to the House of Commons. I worry very much about trade agreements. Members of the European Parliament have the right to comment on them and even to suggest amendments to them. Of course, they then give final consent to trade agreements, but that is not part of the current Administration’s package under the customs and trade Bills.
Vicky Ford
I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the Financial Secretary said from the Dispatch Box: any new free trade agreement that the UK signs up to will be subject to the affirmative procedure in this place.
Mr Leslie
Of course, that is an unamendable procedure. I think that, at the very least, the Government will be pushed by the other place into a super-affirmative procedure whereby the Commons has a Committee that looks at the details and suggests amendments and changes. Ministers may then plough ahead if they want, but a super-affirmative procedure would mirror more the powers of MEPs in these matters. A simple aye or nay would be a dilution of the scrutiny powers that we currently have democratically via elected Members of the European Parliament.
I want to focus on part 3 of the Bill. In the past couple of days, a lot of attention has been given to the number of firms that do business across the European Union. They think of their trade not as imports and exports, but as arrivals and dispatches. Whether they are buying components from Birmingham or Bristol or from Brussels or Berlin, they treat them all the same for customs and excise and VAT purposes. That will potentially not be the case under the Bill.
Even if we stayed in the single market and the customs union, we would not necessarily be in the EU VAT area, which is outwith the customs union. That is another decision that Ministers will have to face up to and take. I would like the Bill to be amended so that we stay in the EU VAT area or, at the very least, have a proper impact assessment of the implications of leaving it. That is the position of the British Retail Consortium, which argues that leaving it would mean a potential bureaucratic burden for businesses that currently, if they are importing goods from EU member states, can treat the acquisition VAT through the normal quarterly lodgings of their VAT returns. Henceforth, those firms will potentially have to pay VAT up front—it is known as import VAT—at the point of entry, so at the border, at the port, at Dover, at the channel tunnel or wherever it comes in, each time there is that level of transaction. To look at it in the round, the customer would pay the same amount of VAT at the end point, but it would be incredibly disruptive to the cash flow of those firms.
I looked online and at the explanatory notes, thinking that there must be a regulatory impact assessment of that situation, because the Bill abolishes acquisition VAT and introduces import VAT on goods, including those from the European Union. There does not seem to be a particularly rigorous impact assessment. I do not know whether I have missed it. There was one for the Trade Remedies Authority, but there does not seem to be one for the import VAT proposals. There ought to be an impact assessment, because that is Cabinet Office best practice, but I cannot seem to find it.
Again, I do not think voters were necessarily tuned into the implications on the EU VAT area when they cast their votes on the ballot paper. I may be criticised again for saying this, but I did not see the EU VAT area on the ballot paper. Perhaps I was not looking closely enough. Perhaps Government Members will help me out and point to where it was.
Currently, 140,000 British companies have to go through the rigmarole of registration and compliance when importing from outside the EU. A further 132,000 firms that do not trade beyond the EU but source their imports and components from within the EU will potentially be added to that. Knocking on for 300,000 businesses will be hit by this. According to HMRC’s own statistics, the number of transactions that are hit by customs duties and, therefore, potentially by import VAT will go from 55 million trades to 255 million trades a year, with all the paperwork and rigmarole associated with that level of bureaucracy.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making incredibly important points about the practical implications of the Bill and the proposed changes. Was he not concerned, therefore, that the Financial Secretary refused to confirm whether any additional customs officers were being proposed or were in training? In fact, he seemed to suggest that they would be reallocated from other roles within HMRC or the Home Office. Given the scale of the additional bureaucracy that is being proposed, is that not deeply worrying?
Mr Leslie
We will have to hear from Ministers how they propose to deal with the extra 200 million trades going through the new system. I hope to read more in the impact assessment. If the Government can cope with, or have proposals to ameliorate, some of that administrative burden, we would like to see it in the impact assessment.
On top of that, my hon. Friend should know that, as I think was mentioned earlier, HMRC currently has a computer system or IT software called CHIEF. What does it stand for? I will not try to deal with the acronym—oh no, I can; you will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it stands for “customs handling of import and export freight”. CHIEF will be retired in January 2019—keep that date in mind, as it is crucial in the transition. We are moving to a new system called the customs declaration service. It is costing £157 million to implement and is potentially great news, but all these 130,000 new traders will suddenly be brought into this new system, and they will need to be given time, leeway and flexibility to get used to a system that they currently do not have to operate. I want to hear from the Minister what approach the Government will take to gradually phase in the new system while bringing so many extra businesses into that procedure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We have had the good fortune over the last week to see some of the news, including BBC news. In the last week the BBC has visited businesses on the mainland. There seems to be a confidence among businesses and private enterprise across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in what the Government are doing in relation to the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he accept that a lot of those companies understand the issues and are happy to put them in the hands of the Government?
Mr Leslie
That is not quite the impression I am getting from the business community. Trade bodies, such the British Retail Consortium and others I have mentioned already, are voicing their concerns, but many businesses are also waiting to see if there is any clarity on the details of how this will pan out. The warm words about phase 1 agreements—“We can sort these things out”, “Don’t worry, it will all be fine”—will only butter so many parsnips. Ultimately, businesses want to know how it will affect their bottom line, how they will cope, what sort of new systems they will need to put in place, what sort of employees they will have to bring in, and so on.
Stephen Doughty
I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He and I get on very well, but I am not hearing the same thing. The Freight Transport Association has made very clear the consequences of even marginal delays to customs procedures, such as those caused by the introduction of a new IT system and the additional time spent processing declarations. It has said that the addition of an average of two minutes to customs processing would result in a 17-mile queue from Dover back to Ashford; four minutes takes the queue back to Maidstone; six minutes back to the M25; eight minutes, and we are at the Dartford crossing and Essex. We could not have a clearer illustration of the types of problems that could be caused. These are substantial changes and, even with the best will in the world, they will have substantial impacts on trade.
Mr Leslie
That is why we should not just rush the Bill through as though it were a minor, technical copy-and-paste exercise. These are fundamental decisions we are having to grapple with, both in this House of Commons and in the other place, and it is not appropriate that it be deemed a money Bill. Yes, aspects are to do with taxation, but others are not and broaden out into trade and other areas. The Government might think they can deal with this tactically in that way but I do not think it appropriate.
I encourage my Front-Bench team, and all hon. Members, to support remaining in the customs union. I give notice to my Front-Bench team in particular. I asked the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the Labour party’s policy on the EU VAT area, a specific area of policy we need to get to grips with. The Bill should be amended so that we retain our involvement and participation in the EU VAT area, as that is the clearest, simplest way of retaining the current benefits. I am sure that amendments will come along on this issue, and when they do, I hope that all hon. Members will think carefully about what to do.
As for this evening, I worry that this VAT issue is yet another potential horror story in the Brexit saga. We pull at one thread and yet more issues start to tumble down on top of our constituents and the business community. It is not right to facilitate duties being put on trade with our nearest neighbours and closest economic allies across the EU, and that is why I hope that we will oppose the Bill this evening.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
If we are to deliver Brexit, the UK needs to leave the customs union and establish its own customs regime. Without doing so, the UK will be precluded from striking its own free trade deals and left open to certain judgments from the European Court of Justice. I fear that those who believe we can honour the referendum result while staying in the single market or customs union are simply wishing to deliver Brexit in name only.
The Bill is widely drafted in order not to prejudice the eventual outcome of any deal we strike with the EU. It instead ensures that the UK can respond to its new status, whatever the circumstances in March 2019. That could include a no deal scenario—something that would represent a wasted opportunity of historic proportions on the EU’s part. Our Government have already made it clear that the UK wants to maintain free, frictionless trade with the EU and that they wish to maintain continuity with EU law at this stage on customs, excise and VAT to give businesses certainty.
There would be no need for chaos at customs or increased tariffs if our standalone regime could be linked closely to the EU’s, potentially in a new customs partnership. The question is whether the EU has the capacity to recognise its own interests and, more crucially, the interests of the people it governs. Until 2008’s financial crisis, global trade had been growing at up to twice the rate of global output for decades. Ever since, trade has slowed to be in line with, or sometimes below, growth in the global economy and political upheaval has followed.
As a founding World Trade Organisation member, the UK has long been a passionate advocate for liberalised trade. It is time to regain that leadership role and push back against the superficial allure of protectionism. The Bill sets the scene for that. While it introduces the potential for levying tariffs, giving us the tools to protect against dumping, it also allows us to adopt a unilateral trade preference scheme for developing countries to ensure trade further replaces aid as the primary poverty alleviation tool.
The Bill also aims to manage the flow of goods at our ports. Over the summer, I visited London Gateway, a state-of-the-art port in Essex with modern HMRC and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs facilities and spare capacity. A logistical hub is being developed to deliver goods directly to London and the south-east rather than via midlands distribution centres. German grocer Lidl has already taken space there. The competition from nearby ports such as Tilbury, with its vast Amazon fulfilment centre, keeps freight costs low and ties into the Government’s ambitions to unlock the entire Thames Gateway with a new river crossing and more homes. This plan and these efficiencies strip out cost to retailers, helping to offset any potential increase in tariffs. Our customs systems are already highly efficient, but the Bill sets up an authorised economic operator scheme to indicate the fulfilment by exporters and importers of recognised compliance standards and makes provision for HMRC-approved warehouse operators. These measures should fast-track shipments. We now need to identify the sectors most exposed to any new cost and resource HMRC appropriately, which is what the Government are doing.
In my capacity as a member of the International Trade Select Committee, I would like to say something about tariff-free quotas. As an EU member, the UK is party to over 60 free trade agreements that permit our trading partners to export a certain volume of goods to the EU tariff-free. Along with the Trade Bill, this Bill provides the foundation for the continuation of these deals after Brexit. We hope that this grandfathering process will be straightforward, but our trading partners may use the opportunity to renegotiate terms, and rules of origin might add complexity to existing trade. Rules of origin define where a product was made and help to determine the application of quotas, preferential tariffs and trade remedies.
At present, the UK can export to the EU with no restrictions on the value of imported intermediates from third countries, and this will likely change once we are out of the customs union. Origin is generally conferred based on where a good was obtained or manufactured or where the last substantial transformation took place. Cumulation of origin allows for greater flexibility when using raw or semi-manufactured materials from certain third countries. Currently, as an EU member state, the UK benefits from the pan- Euro-Mediterranean cumulation zone.
Cumulative rules of origin may prove hard to negotiate, requiring trilateral discussion between the UK, the EU and the third country concerned. None the less, the UK’s departure from existing free trade agreements is not challenge-free for the EU either. Those FTAs were negotiated on the basis of access to an EU economy that included a UK market, which, in 2015, amounted to 17.5 % of the EU’s GDP, and which contains some of its most voracious consumers. If we withdraw that market from the FTA, there will inevitably be an impact on its functioning, if not on its legal character. The EU plans to remove the equivalent of the UK’s market share from the duty-free quotas that it offers its trading partners. Otherwise, EU domestic producers will have to compete with a greater inflow of tariff-free foreign goods. FTA partners, however, are understandably very unhappy at the prospect of a substantial reduction in their tariff-free quotas.
If the EU can think imaginatively and flexibly about a customs link to the UK economy, with potential agreement on rules of origin at least for a transition period, the potential problems of both sides can be addressed. The EU’s default arrangements relating to rules of origin are relatively liberal, and processes already exist for exporters to self-certify origins. Agreeing on those processes, and ensuring that businesses sign up to them now, should be a priority.
Kirsty Blackman
May I pursue the issue of tariff-rate quotas? Is it not the case that, even if countries receive the same amount in total—if they were previously able to distribute 100 tonnes of goods, and in future they could distribute 70 to the EU and 30 to the UK—they might challenge that on the basis that if the UK market collapses, they will not be able to transfer that amount to another country, as they currently can?
Julia Lopez
My point is that any issues relating to tariff-rate quotas will affect not just the UK but the EU, and it is therefore in the EU’s interests to try to reach an accommodation with the UK.
I welcome the Bill, which is about preparedness and which, given its wide drafting, allows for any negotiated outcome. I hope that it sets us up for a new chapter in our long history as a proud, global trading nation.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Let me start where the Minister started. He spoke of wanting to secure the greatest possible economic advantage for the United Kingdom, but I am afraid that what we have is a series of Ministers who are wilfully proceeding with Tory Brexit decisions that they know are damaging to the UK’s economic interests.
Some Conservative Members—although not Ministers —state openly that they realise that what the Government are pursuing is damaging to our economic interests. Some are embarrassed by that, and I shall not embarrass them by naming names; they are keeping their heads down and staying quiet. Some think that this is a price worth paying. Some believe that it will benefit the United Kingdom, although sometimes the advice that they give to others is the complete opposite of their claims to that effect.
All those who follow this debate, whether they are leave or remain supporters, ought to be aware that Ministers are advocating a move that they know is damaging to the UK’s interests and that they are doing so because on 23 June 2016, on one day of the electoral cycle, people voted to leave the European Union. People need to remember that Conservative Members who were overwhelmingly in favour of our remaining in the EU know that this will cause us damage, but are proceeding with it nevertheless. The Government will not admit that, and they will not release the information that would enable us to know it. We have already had the rather circular argument about sectoral analysis, impact assessments and so on. The one thing that the Government are not willing to do is share the information about what the economic impact of Brexit will be.
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), who is no longer in the Chamber, made a very sensible point. He understands perfectly well the impact that leaving the EU and the customs union would have on the port of Dover. He rightly pointed out that countries trade more effectively with countries that are close to them. That is why the idea that there is a trade deal out there with Australia or New Zealand that will replace the trade deals that we have with the European Union is a fiction.
There have been many references to frictionless, seamless trade. That is fine; everyone wants to achieve that. The only problem is that, so far, no one has actually identified how it will work. It is great to have the aspiration, but in practice no solution is available. The same is true of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) confirmed that that can has been kicked down the road. No solution has been identified in phase 1 of the negotiations. It has been accepted that there is a huge problem, but also that the can will be kicked a little further down the road.
Mr Simon Clarke
The whole point is that the Irish border issue cannot be resolved until we know the wider context of the trade agreement that has been established. The right hon. Gentleman is getting the logic back to front.
Tom Brake
We will wait and see whether I have got the logic back to front. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, however, that the idea that it is possible to have on one hand a completely seamless border and on the other hand a United Kingdom that is outside the European Union does not work. There must be one of two solutions. The first, relating to where that border sits, would be very unpopular with members of the Democratic Unionist party, while the second goes against everything that the party in power is advocating. I do not think that there is a simple solution, and that is why I think that the issue has been kicked down the road. I suppose people are hoping that, perhaps as a result of phase 2 of the negotiations, there will be a miracle solution that will make possible a frictionless, seamless border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, but given that no one has identified it so far in the 18 months or so that have elapsed since the referendum, I am not confident that anyone will come up with it in the time that remains.
I believe that the Bill is unnecessary and, indeed, highly damaging. It was required only because the Government have set themselves against the solution that is our staying in the customs union. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) tried to highlight the differences between Labour Front Benchers and some of his hon. Friends, which is easy enough to do, but he could equally have chosen to highlight the differences on the Tory Benches. At least one Tory Member, the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), considers the solution that the Government are trying to identify in all their fudges and workarounds to be staying in the customs union, and I agree with her. If there are differences of opinion, they exist on both sides of the House, not just between Labour Front and Back Benchers.
We will oppose the Bill’s Second Reading, not for—I was going to say mealy-mouthed reasons, but that might be unfair. I do not know the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) terribly well, but I have no reason to believe that he is, in fact, mealy-mouthed. I must say, however, that Labour Members are trying to sit on the fence for as long as is physically possible, in spite of repeated interventions from their own side. At some point, they will have to jump in one direction or the other. It must be getting very uncomfortable for them, sitting on that fence. The longer they sit on it, the sharper and more uncomfortable for their backsides it will become. At some point, they are going to have to jump. I hope that they will jump in the direction that they are being encouraged to do by some of their Back Benchers and by the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and the Green party—namely, in favour of staying in the customs union and the single market long term, not just as a means of massaging support over the next few months but in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom.
As I have said, I do not want to describe Labour Front Benchers as mealy-mouthed, but there is clearly some difficulty with the position that the Labour party is trying to adopt, and I would like some clarity on this. Labour Members say that they are interested in preserving jobs, for instance, and I wonder what work they have done to assess the impact of a substantial number of job losses in the transport industry. A lot of goods are transported from the Republic of Ireland to Dover through Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Those involved are thinking of simply cutting out the rather complicated business of crossing the UK border altogether and instead shipping the stuff straight from Ireland to, say, Cherbourg. That would result in the loss of many jobs in Britain along the way.
We have heard many references to the VAT change, which could affect between 100,000 and 150,000 businesses. Concern was expressed earlier that some larger businesses can be quite aggressive towards small suppliers, but a lot of the businesses affected will be small businesses that suddenly find themselves in difficulties with their cash flow. I wonder what analysis the Government have carried out on that. I am afraid that, as in so many areas relating to Brexit, the answer is that there has been no impact analysis and that the Government are simply proceeding with these changes.
One of the key claims by the leave campaign was that leaving the EU was about cutting red tape. I would love the Minister to confirm that the measures in the Bill will cut red tape for businesses, but frankly I cannot see how businesses will benefit from a reduction in red tape in any shape or form as a result of this legislation. Instead, businesses that are not subject to red tape at the moment will have to take on red tape that they have never previously had to deal with. The Minister must at least try to address that point, given that one of the main claims made by leave campaigners was that leaving the EU would cut red tape for businesses.
We could talk at length about the delegated powers, as we have done on many other Bills relating to Brexit, but there is no point in rehearsing the arguments that have been made on those Bills, because the Government are clearly intent on taking advantage of the situation and cutting Parliament out of the loop as much as possible.
If the Government want to proceed in the way that they are doing at the moment, trade remedies will be essential. Members will be aware that trade remedies are currently implemented by the EU, which has more than 100 such measures in place against imports from 25 countries. To what extent does the Minister expect those measures to be replicated? Also, does he believe that it will be possible for the UK, operating alone, to have more effective trade remedies than those currently implemented by the EU with its 28 member states? Again, we need clarity, honesty and accountability. We need to hear from the Minister whether he thinks that the trade remedies available to the United Kingdom on its own will be weaker and less effective than what is currently available to us as a member of the European Union.
I welcome the fact that the Government will legislate to ensure that we can maintain a system of trade preferences for developing countries. I have already referred to the VAT issue and to the impact on red tape. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Bill will have no red tape implications, although it is hard to see how he could possibly do so. [Interruption.] Would my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) like to intervene on me?
Tom Brake
No. Okay. I thought my hon. Friend was poised to come in with a trenchant point. I am sure that she has one, and that she is saving it up till later.
The Government have brought forward a Bill that is needed simply because they have chosen to adopt one of the more extreme Brexit options open to them: settling for no deal whatsoever or coming out of the customs union. In those circumstances, it is clear that they will need to provide the legislation that is set out in this Bill and that trade remedies will need to be in place. I have put to the Minister some specific questions about whether he can demonstrate that the Bill will not impose an additional red tape burden on businesses and whether the trade remedies that he is advocating in the Bill are likely to be more effective for the United Kingdom than the ones currently available to us through the European Union. With that, I will happily sit down.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I was hoping this evening that we might begin to get past some of the old arguments and debates over whether to leave the EU that we have been having ad nauseam over the past year and more, but it seems as though some people cannot understand that if we do not leave the single market and the customs union, we simply have not left the EU. It is by virtue of being a member of the EU that we are in the customs union, and we automatically leave it on the day we leave the EU.
The opportunities that are there for this country as a result of leaving the EU simply will not be there if we stay in the single market. The behind-the-border trade reforms that can give advantages to our service industries will not be possible if we do not have control of our own regulation, and being a member of the single market will obviate that entirely. Similarly, on the customs union or, indeed, a customs union, if we leave the control of our customs and trade policies with the EU, everybody would judge that to mean our not having left the EU. What we need, and what I have argued for consistently, is an advanced and modern form of customs co-operation that enables our trade to be as frictionless as possible. There will be frictions, however, and we should not shy away from talking about them. The Bill begins to allow us to have control over all the levers that enable us to put such things into place. This enabling legislation is vital so that we can have the systems that are required for things to operate properly on day one after we leave the EU.
I will certainly support the Bill’s Second Reading, which will give it this House’s support in principle. We have heard quite a lot of discussion about the different policy stances that the Bill will enable us to take up in future, and there will obviously be much more discussion about what our trade policies should be. It is entirely right that that should happen in this House in a constructive and, I hope, cross-party manner, because this is about our futures and those of our children and grandchildren, too.
I want to address a few of the things that have come up this evening. The point about VAT and cash flows is interesting and I have raised it before, and it is worth remembering that the EU is going through its own change process on VAT. It intends to impose a directive that would essentially mean that the country from which a good is being exported will collect the VAT at its own rate rather than have a good exported on a VAT-free basis and then get the receiving country to account for the difference after having collected VAT on receipt. That in itself will change a lot of the cash flows around intra-European trade, and it is worth examining more closely whether it makes sense in that context for us to think about having a system that enables us to collect VAT for each other in the future. I am not necessarily against being party to some sort of arrangement with the EU on VAT to enable that smooth process at the border to continue, but we need to look at it much more closely. I hope Ministers will give some thought to that and inform the House of their thinking.
We have also heard today about rules of origin, and it is right to raise that—I have previously raised rules of origin both in the International Trade Committee and in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made the excellent point that the cumulation of rules of origin is very important in any trade deal. We will have to think about those things anyway, and we absolutely have to think about them in the context of rolling over the trade agreements we already have by virtue of being in the EU. There is a lot of good will on the part of foreign nations that are party to those deals, but rules of origin will definitely have to be addressed in our negotiations with the EU.
As my colleague on the International Trade Committee, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), said earlier, tariff-free quotas are also important in that context, and the EU has to think about that. When it comes to rules of origin, we also have to remember that our supply chains are highly integrated, and it is not as simple as saying that we just cannot trade with the EU anymore. It would also be very damaging for the EU, as having to find suppliers that are not part of our supply chain would create a lot of pressure on EU businesses, and it would create a lot of pressure on the EU to find resource from within its own economies to meet those supply chain needs. That is not something the EU would want.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about European suppliers needing to find someone to supply, and about companies in this country needing to use such supplies. Is there not a danger that, particularly in the car industry where companies from other parts of the EU are currently in this country, we will lose viable industries? They will simply go where the supply chain is easier and where they will not be tied up in the red tape proposed in this Bill.
Mr Fysh
The hon. Lady is right that, particularly in the car industry, rules of origin are an issue across the world. In the North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, the ability of US and Canadian car manufacturers to integrate their supply chains makes a big difference. Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the Canadians are considering re-entering in a modified form, rules of origin on cars are probably one of the main determining issues. The degree to which local content needs to be demonstrated is a major factor.
Among other things I hope that, through this process, car manufacturers will look at sourcing more UK content in order to raise the proportion sourced in the UK, or indeed in the EU. It is all to play for, and there are lots of different ways of organising it. I would not necessarily say it is impossible or too hard but, yes, it needs to be thought about.
In that context—I have also said this before—the Customs Declaration Service that HMRC is working on has to be flexible enough to change the values that are put into the system. Whether on VAT, import duty or the cumulation of rules of origin, we need to make sure the system is able to be changed flexibly and easily at a later date. If that is not the case, this will be a nightmare and we will have a computer system that fails. I hope HMRC is well aware of that fact and of the need for that flexibility.
We have also heard about trade remedies, and it is right to say that the Trade Remedies Authority needs to be put in place very soon. The sooner it can get on with doing the work of analysing what the competitive position in various of these industries where existing or potential future remedies are going to be needed, the better; that has to be done with a good lead time in order for us to be able to argue at the WTO that we should potentially think about renewing trade remedies or putting new ones in different industries in place.
We also heard a little about lesser duty. It is fair to say that the lesser duty provisions in the WTO agreements are there for a reason: to try to prevent an arbitrary and egregious application of trade remedies. However, we need to make sure that we use our opportunities arising from coming out of the EU to make these arguments for how the global trade system should work in a non-egregious and non-arbitrary way, one where we can have rational dispute resolution mechanisms for our trade.
Having said those things and having said how necessary this Bill is, I must say that I have some concerns about the text, which I would like to discuss with Ministers and think about during the later stages of the Bill. I am concerned about clause 42, which deals with the EU law relating to VAT, and the potential for statutory instruments to be brought forward to alter the rights, remedies and procedures which have been imported by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Similarly, I would like more clarity on clause 47, which deals with EU law relating to excise duty. We need to think a bit more about it, because it seems to give the Treasury and Treasury Ministers the power to alter fundamental concepts of EU law and the application of it in the future.
We also heard about clause 31, which relates to the potential implementation of a customs union, with fairly draconian Henry VIII powers. Admittedly they are subject to an affirmative procedure in the House of Commons, but it would be worth knowing a bit more about what the intent of this is and exactly how it would operate. Overall, we need to make sure we use this opportunity and this Bill to get a positive new customs co-operation system in place with our EU friends and allies. What we want is a good relationship with the EU, and it does not have to be at the expense of the rest of the world. This is not an either/or situation. I have heard many commentators say that if we are not part of the EU, we cannot do anything with the EU and that all the other deals we might do around the rest of the world cannot replace that. That is a false argument because we are looking to build on what can be as near as possible to our current relationship with the EU, and if we can do that really well and are smart about it, we can make a great success of leaving the EU.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Ga’i ddymuno blwyddyn newydd dda i chi—may I wish you a happy new year, Mr Speaker?
I wish to confine my remarks to three key points. First, I wish to add my voice to those calling for our continued membership of the largest trading bloc in the world. Secondly, I wish to outline the concerns from Welsh ports, which would face immediate challenges to their existing position as a result of changes to our customs arrangements. Thirdly, the weakness of this Bill’s ability to protect our vital industries will form the final part of my speech, and we have heard many interesting contributions on that point already.
As promised, I wish first to reiterate to the British Government the illogicality of, and harm they will cause by, ripping us out of the customs union. A student of GCSE economics could explain the foundations of international trade as laid out by David Ricardo. His theory of comparative advantage is not complex to grasp. By specialising in particular industries, combined with free international trade, all nations will see positive results. The premise is simple: rather than creating a range of mediocre products, the highly specialised industries of each nation produce better goods, which are then traded internationally, satisfying domestic demand for the products made in other nations. Whether we agree that this commercial international order should be our goal or not, it has underpinned our economic approach to trade for centuries.
International marketplaces have moved on from Ricardo’s time. Instead of cloth and wine, the modern economy trades aeroplane wings, specialised steel products and microchips. To account for this complexity, policy makers have created institutions to manage commerce.
The European customs union is the greatest example of one such institution. By removing physical and financial barriers to trade, it has created the largest, richest, most powerful network of free-trading states in the world. As a result of our membership of the customs union, Welsh businesses can trade on a completely unfettered basis within the bloc, gaining access to 600 million consumers.
As a trading bloc, the EU customs union also applies a common external tariff on entering the bloc, and we should remind ourselves of the extra costs that will hit our exporters if we are no longer members and have no agreement on future tariffs. Carmarthenshire is known for its agricultural produce, so it is worth putting it on the record that the tariff for animal products can be more than 138%, with an average of 20%; the maximum tariff on dairy products can be as much as 134%, with an average of 45%.
I could also point to other major employers in Carmarthenshire who manufacture component parts for export and will obviously follow the upcoming negotiations with great interest. We should not be under any illusion: if it becomes burdensome, financially or through regulation, for those companies to move their goods, they will relocate. Our membership of the single market and the customs union has been invaluable in securing valuable foreign direct investment in areas such as my home communities in the Amman valley.
Before I am accused of scaremongering, today’s shambolic reshuffle was trailed in the press over the weekend as a reorganisation to prepare for a no-deal scenario. The 27 members of the EU are not the only ones with whom we will lose our existing free-trade arrangements. Sixty-seven countries have agreements with EU customs union members which must be grandfathered, although there continues to be some dispute about whether that is possible. The issue will be discussed in greater detail tomorrow when we deliberate on the Trade Bill.
By pulling my nation out of the European customs union in search of some false free-trade, low-tariff Brexit nirvana, the British Government risk the jobs and wages of my constituents. The Minister will undoubtedly claim that this is the will of the people. We can of course engage in a tit-for-tat argument over whether that is the case. However, that denies him the opportunity to outline the purported benefits of the British Government’s approach. For that reason, I ask him the following: if certainty is his aim, and the status quo is certainty, why is rolling the dice on more than half our imports and exports a good idea? Why is he gambling away my constituents’ jobs and wages? Why is he pulling us out of the customs union at all?
I also implore Labour Front Benchers to come to their senses. The constructive ambiguity of the Labour party’s Brexit position may offer marginal electoral advantage, but it provides the silver platter on which the Tories can serve up an extreme and damaging Brexit. Rather than playing hokey cokey with the single market and customs union, I ask Opposition Members to join us and take a clear stand to say we are better off in these great European economic institutions. Let there be no mistake: the Tories can deliver their current policy of an extreme Brexit only because the position of the Labour leadership is to leave the single market and the customs union after the transition phase.
Kirsty Blackman
Does my colleague agree that Opposition Front Benchers are not supporting a jobs-first Brexit? If they wanted a jobs-first Brexit, they would keep us in the single market and the customs union.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful for the intervention, and am aware that during the debate many honourable colleagues on the Labour Back Benches have made that exact point and implored Front Benchers to change their position. Some very interesting reports are coming out of the parliamentary Labour party meeting this evening.
Before the recess, the tangible and immediate chaos created by pulling us out of the customs union was vividly illustrated. The Prime Minister’s attempts to conclude phase 1 of the negotiations were almost scuppered by the issue of customs borders on the island of Ireland. Others will be able to expound with greater invested passion why no such border should exist. However, I would like to raise my concerns about the sea border that my nation shares with Ireland and thus the EU.
Wales and its ports are intimately linked with Ireland. Holyhead, Fishguard, and Pembroke Dock are vital trading links between Wales and the Republic of Ireland. Holyhead is the UK’s second largest port. In excess of 400,000 trucks pass through it every year. A hard maritime border between Wales and the Republic of Ireland will inevitably hit Holyhead hard, and I ask Ministers to read the excellent article of 4 January by my former university lecturer, Professor Richard Wyn Jones, on this specific issue facing Holyhead and his native isle of Ynys Môn, or Anglesey. In Holyhead there is simply no space in or around the port for the kind of infrastructure that will be required to process the number of lorries and trailers that currently pass through it. A hard border in Holyhead can yield only chaos. The same problems apply to Pembroke Dock and Fishguard.
The inevitable consequence of physical constraints in and around the ports is that freight will need to find ways to bypass Holyhead and Wales, especially if there is a soft border between the British state and the European Union in Northern Ireland. Without trade arrangements that mirror the outcomes of what we already have, Welsh ports will be in danger of becoming uncompetitive. With the intention of pulling us out of the customs union, the Bill and the actions of the Minister make it clear to the people of Holyhead that the Government consider their livelihoods to be dispensable.
Finally, I would like to highlight the concerns of an industry central to and symbolic of the Welsh economy—the steel sector. Primarily its concerns centre on trade defence provisions. These are found in clauses 13 and 14 and schedules 4 and 5. I am sure the Minister will have seen last week’s letter in the Financial Times from almost a dozen industry and union representatives highlighting the fact that these clauses
“set up a lighter-touch approach to illegal dumping by China and others than in the remaining EU and any other major economy.”
In the lead-up to the referendum, the exact opposite was promised by the leave side. In an ITV Cymru debate I took part in, Mr Nathan Gill from UKIP, speaking on behalf of the leave side, promised that a British Government freed from the shackles of Brussels would be able to impose prohibitive anti-dumping duties on China. I am sure that that clear promise influenced votes in some communities in south Wales. When he uttered those words, we know the British Government were selling the Welsh steel sector down the river. In March 2016, the British Government blocked attempts to strengthen EU trade defences against imports of cheap Chinese steel that devastated Port Talbot steelworks and took it to the brink of collapse—as we heard from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) earlier. Yet again, it seems that the Government have little concern for steelworkers, preferring to seek dodgy deals with Trump’s America and cosying up to Beijing to protecting Welsh jobs and wages.
Fundamentally, the Bill would be wholly unnecessary, and its deficiencies of no concern, if the policy of the British Government followed the sensible path of remaining a member of the European customs union. For this reason and other reasons I have outlined, my Plaid Cymru colleagues and I will refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading and will vote against it tonight.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in favour of the Bill as it provides the next pillar to support the UK’s exit from the European Union. Free and fair trade is fundamental to the growth and prosperity of the United Kingdom and the world economy. Trade with our neighbours near and far is intrinsically linked with jobs, wage growth, productivity and innovation. Trade ensures that more people can access a wider choice of goods and services, hopefully at a lower and competitive cost, and can make household incomes go that bit further.
As we prepare to leave the EU, we are beginning to chart our new course, remaining—as we have always been proud to be—an outward-looking, internationalist nation, and identifying new opportunities with potential trading partners around the world. The UK’s trade with the world is equivalent to over half our GDP. We must therefore do everything that we can to ensure that trade can continue and that all the necessary arrangements are in place after we have left the EU. We need customs, VAT and excise arrangements to support us in both our existing and future trading missions.
Let us be absolutely clear: the decision by the British people in 2016 to leave the EU was one to remove us from all aspects of the EU, not to cherry-pick the ones we want. Indeed, 27 other countries would have a say about any cherry-picking we indulged in. Our departure from the EU includes leaving the customs union. Opposition Members would ignore or put aside the decision by the people of the UK and claim that the country could somehow magically retain its membership of the customs union. This Government have made it crystal clear that the UK will leave the customs union. Anything less would be viewed as a betrayal of the millions of people across the country who voted leave—I am not one of them; I voted to remain—and now expect us in this place to carry out that decision. I hope that those voters will be encouraged by the Government’s steps to implement our own independent arrangements, including on trade, and will feel that real progress is being made towards our exit from the EU.
I would like to deal briefly with an issue of huge importance to businesses in Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, and indeed beyond—throughout the whole United Kingdom. Business after business in my constituency stresses the same thing: the need for clarity and certainty so that they can begin the process of planning for their futures, and the futures of their staff, suppliers and customers. This Bill takes steps to address their concerns.
Customs and excise are complex issues, and I am not an expert in them, but I understand that more than 17,000 types of goods must be classified, and I am sure there will be sub-classifications as well. It will take time for businesses—and, I dare say, the Government—to adapt to any new changes. I therefore welcome the provisions that facilitate an interim customs arrangement with the EU, remaining true to the Prime Minister’s promise of an implementation period. During such a period, I would like close association with the EU customs union, in much the same manner as we proceed currently, so that we avoid a cliff edge for businesses, which no one wants.
Stephen Kerr
My hon. Friend talks about cliff edges. Does he, like me, find it ironic that the Opposition parties that will vote against the Bill’s Second Reading are creating the very cliff edge that our constituents—business operators, directors and entrepreneurs—do not want? That is exactly what Labour and the SNP will be doing by voting against Second Reading.
Bill Grant
I share my hon. Friend’s view about the pessimism of some Opposition Members, albeit not all. The last thing that we need is to talk down the United Kingdom and our business communities. At this time, they need our support. We do not need a cliff edge for business in the UK, as well as those in the EU with which we trade.
The next few months will be crucial, and I am sure that the UK’s negotiating team in Brussels will do all it can to agree to the principle of an implementation period. The one thing this Bill must not do is limit our ability to negotiate a future trade agreement with the EU. All options must be on the table for our negotiating team to secure a future trade agreement.
Whatever the future arrangements—we do not know what they are; no deal has been struck and the die has not been cast—at the heart of the UK’s trade policy must be a continued commitment to rules-based free trade. The UK has long led the world in this area, from early trading days with sailing ships such as cutters—[Interruption.] I was thinking more of the Cutty Sark.
We have played a leading role in organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. We in Scotland have made an immense contribution to the UK’s trade across the world, for instance with our shipbuilding. We have done very well. We have sailed the world—I shall never forget it—and our most successful days are ahead as we remain part of the United Kingdom.
Our future trading arrangements with Europe have immense possibility. The UK starts from an unprecedented point of alignment, and I would like both sides to take this opportunity to design a customs arrangement that is both ambitious and innovative. This is not a one-way street; it is a two-way street with many movements on it. Let us imagine the Prosecco producer in Italy, the wine producers in France and Spain, the flower growers in Holland—[Interruption.] Yes, there is whisky, but we are leaving; I am thinking of the ones who remain, such as the car manufacturers in Germany and Spain. They will want a frictionless, seamless arrangement. Let us never forget that the United Kingdom is a good country to do business with. These people, among many others I could mention, will want to continue to do good business with us.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the most important thing for the EU is to maintain its integrity? If everybody would get a better deal by leaving the EU, as the UK thinks it will, everybody would leave. That is exactly why the EU wants to protect its union. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the first thing the EU will have in mind?
Bill Grant
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I think she missed the point of what I was trying to say. This is a two-way street. In fact, the trade deficit is in favour of the EU. I think that we will wish to work together as nations. Although we are leaving the EU, we are not falling out with the EU. We have made a choice. We are leaving, but we want to be friends. Basically, I was saying that the EU will wish to remain our friend for a whole range of reasons.
Above all else, the needs of businesses throughout the UK must be prioritised, which means that we must have a customs arrangement that is both highly streamlined and compatible with our colleagues in European nations. We should not create differences. We have decided to leave—[Interruption.] We can replicate and mimic, but Opposition Members forget to tell us the baggage that comes with membership of the customs union. We cannot cherry-pick; European colleagues—friends of Opposition Members and friends of mine—will not allow that.
The Bill will ensure that the UK can continue to operate as an outward-looking nation after we exit the EU, leaving open options for the Government’s implementation of an effective future trade policy. I have heard repeatedly the pessimism of some Opposition Members, although not all. They are so pessimistic and willing to talk down our businesses, capabilities and competences, and our willingness to innovate and to succeed. We will succeed and we will honour the referendum. The world truly is our oyster and we shall succeed. For that reason, I am delighted to support the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), even though large parts of his speech were based on magical thinking.
I rise to address schedules 4 and 5, which propose the introduction of a new post-Brexit trade defence regime. Trade remedies enable countries to defend themselves against underpriced and state-subsidised goods, so they play a pivotal role in the rules-based WTO system. Governments would never have agreed to the radical trade liberalisation of the past half century were they not reassured that they could act to step in and defend their industries, if necessary. Trade defence remedies have therefore played a central role in tearing down the walls that prevent free and fair trade. How ironic, then, that this Bill is the work of a Conservative Government. The party that claims to be the voice of enterprise, free trade, business and industrial strategy has produced a Bill that, if passed in its current form, would fatally undermine the British manufacturing sector.
To illustrate my point, I wish to focus on what the Bill, in its current form, would mean for the British steel industry, which is centred on the Port Talbot steelworks in my Aberavon constituency. Over a third of the EU’s 92 trade defence instruments relate to steel, and over the years those 30-odd measures have played a vital part in stemming the flow of the dumped Chinese steel that almost led to the total collapse of the British steel industry. The Chinese Communist party owns 80% of that country’s steel industry. The party subsidises the industry to the hilt and sells the steel at well below cost on the global market. It is a well-established strategy that the Chinese state pursues relentlessly and ruthlessly in its bid to extinguish all competition and establish monopoly status.
The all-party group on steel’s “Steel 2020” report, which was supported and signed by Members who now serve in government, concluded that trade defence instruments exist not to unfairly protect certain sectors of the economy, but rather
“to support the free, fair and efficient functioning of the market.”
I will certainly not stand here and claim that the EU’s trade remedies regime works perfectly; it does not. It has often been too slow and bureaucratic, and it has unfortunately been hamstrung by the lesser duty rule. The fact of the matter is that the European Commission acts on behalf of 28 member states and 500 million consumers, so when it threatens action, even behemoths such as China sit up and take notice. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that were it not for the anti-dumping measures taken by the Commission at the height of the steel crisis, our precious steel industry would probably have gone under.
I speak today not only to raise concerns about the Bill’s implications for our steel industry, but to highlight the fact that this is about the future of our entire manufacturing sector. Indeed, the chief executive officers of the British steel, paper, ceramics, minerals and chemicals associations, along with their trade union counterparts, put it very well in their letter of 5 January to the Financial Times. They said:
“Without a robust approach to trade remedies the UK government will be unable to achieve its international trade or industrial strategy ambitions. The UK’s manufacturing base and tens of thousands of jobs around the country…will be at risk if parliament gets the bill wrong.”
I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that if they have any form of manufacturing in their constituency, the Bill really matters to them.
As an MP who represents a constituency whose local economy relies almost entirely on manufacturing, I desperately want the Government’s industrial strategy to succeed, but the fact is that it will not be worth the paper it is written on if it is not underpinned by a robust trade remedies regime. It is in that constructive spirit that I urge the Government to undertake a radical rethink of schedules 4 and 5, with particular reference to five issues. First, the Bill contains very little detail about how the post-Brexit trade remedies regime will operate in practice. Instead it enables the Secretary of State to legislate for all-important details through statutory instruments. That really matters not only because it is yet another example of Ministers attempting to sideline Parliament, which has become a recurring theme of this whole Brexit process, but because there will be deep and widespread industry uncertainty until the secondary legislation is in place. Labour Members have raised the issue of steel in this place more than 300 times since 2015, but if this Bill passes in its current form, steelworkers and their families can kiss goodbye to the idea that they will have a voice in Parliament standing up for their interests and fighting their corner. We will not be able to do so because all the key decisions will be taken behind closed doors and implemented by statutory instruments.
Secondly, it is imperative that the Bill includes a cast-iron commitment to scrapping the lesser duty rule. This Government have been the ringleader of attempts to block EU moves to reform the rule, which means that we have only been able to impose tariffs of 13% to 16%, whereas the Americans, for example, can impose import duties of over 200% on dumped Chinese steel. An unreformed lesser duty rule must not be retained in UK law. We therefore call on the Government to state precisely how they intend to calculate the margin of injury to ensure that the process is at least as robust as the reformed EU system, and to lay out all that detail in the Bill.
Thirdly, the economic and public interest tests would create an unnecessarily high barrier to introducing any form of trade defence. None of those tests is required under WTO rules, so why are the Government intent on placing multiple obstacles in the path of an industry that wishes to file a complaint?
Fourthly, we need changes to the proposed remit and composition of the Trade Remedies Authority, bringing it in line with global norms and ensuring proper representation of trade unions and industry. Fifthly, the Bill must be amended to ensure that British courts are able to correct decisions made by the Government that deny British industry WTO-complainant rights that our competitors across the world enjoy. Without those changes, the Bill will fail in its essential task of establishing a fit and proper trade defence regime.
Once we have decoupled ourselves from the EU’s trade defence regime, it is simply beyond debate that we will have less leverage. Therefore, if anything, the post-Brexit regime that we create must be far tougher and more robust than the one that we have left. That is why we simply cannot allow schedules 4 and 5 to pass unamended. Unless the Bill is amended, it will deny us even those scant protections. For that reason, I urge hon. and right hon. Members to join me in the Lobby to amend and fix this broken Bill.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I agree with a number of the comments about trade remedies in relation to the ceramics industry, but I will touch on that later.
It is essential in leaving the EU and the EU customs union that we develop our own customs regime. It will put in place the foundations for the negotiations on leaving the EU but does not predetermine them, allowing the flexibility needed as with any negotiating process. I hope that we secure the best possible Brexit deal. But whatever the outcome may be from those negotiations on future customs—deal or not—it is essential to have legislation in place on the UK statute book when we leave. It is important that we have the strongest hand possible in the negotiations, with the powers in place as required to adapt the UK system to fit with the outcomes from the negotiations.
It is clear that we need to maintain certainty for our businesses, ensuring initially that there can be parity as far as possible between the existing EU customs union and the new regime developed for the UK, creating a smooth transitional period. This must be based on the continued strong support for rules-based free trade and the structures of international institutions set out particularly through the World Trade Organisation. An independent customs policy will allow us to pursue policies that are in the best interests of UK trade and our own economy, and in the interests of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South. We are clear on these Benches about our policy on trade and leaving the customs union. This is in stark contrast to the concoction of views from the Opposition Benches.
This is what my constituents voted for when they voted 70% to leave. They wanted to see a change—not just in leaving the EU, but in pursing our interests more effectively around the world and supporting all our communities to become more prosperous. Businesses in Stoke-on-Trent South, where we have a significant manufacturing base, see huge opportunities for developing new trade links outside the EU, and leaving the customs union will enable this. There is significant potential to grow our export markets in order to sell some of the fantastic products that we produce to countries such as the United States, Japan and other developed market economies around the world.
For manufacturing and specific industries such as ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent, it is critical that we have the right trade policies in place that support a robust trade remedies regime. This is about ensuring a level playing field for these industries, continuing the anti-dumping measures already put in place by the EU that have allowed industries such as ceramics to stabilise. I was pleased by the assurances given to me by the Secretary of State for International Trade when he visited my constituency that the current measures in place within the EU will continue post-Brexit.
Where we face unfair competition from state subsidisation in non-market economies such as China and others, resulting in huge overproduction, we need to ensure that it is not possible for below-value products to be dumped into the British market. Just to reflect on the vast scale of these distortions, there is currently an overproduction of tiles in China that is six times the entire EU annual demand. This puts at risk jobs in Stoke-on-Trent and other manufacturing industries across constituencies such as ours. To ensure that there can be real free trade, we must ensure that in leaving the EU there continues to be an effective trade remedies framework that aligns well with other WTO members.
In all, it is essential that the Bill is accepted by the House today to ensure that we have the necessary legislation in place when we leave the EU, with the flexibility to support our negotiations and a new tariffs regime that is in the national interest.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and, preceding him, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), both of whom represent industries that are also very important to my constituency—steel and ceramics. I join them in pursuing a robust trade remedies mechanism, and in agreeing particularly with my hon. Friend that there is much work still to do to make sure that we get this right. I also join my hon. Friend in being very clear that we are talking about a level playing field and not protectionism. I think that on the Labour Benches there is considerable support—I hope universal support—for genuine free trade. Protectionism is not the way forward if we want to grow economically and play our part on the global stage.
This Bill, if passed, will fundamentally change our relationships, whether for good or bad, not just with our closest trading partners but with countries across the world. The EU customs union is without question one of the key pillars supporting the largest free trading bloc in the global economy—a bloc that in 2016 accounted for 43% of our exports and 54% of our imports. Yet we are debating a Bill that, in effect, confirms the Government’s intention to take us out of the customs union—a mechanism that is, or has been, integral to delivering our current trading profile. The Government are doing this despite the fact that leaving the customs union could cost the UK an estimated £25 billion every year until at least 2030.
Leaving the union will also further complicate our key trading relationships by necessitating customs declarations for EU trade. The National Audit Office estimates that the number of declarations per year will increase from 55 million to 255 million if the UK leaves the customs union. Sometimes one has to lay down the statistics as barely as that, because this is what it all means. We have to see the global impact of the decisions that we are taking here in this Chamber.
To put into perspective what is at stake, it is worth looking in a little detail at the food and drink sector, which is the largest manufacturing sector in the UK economy. It is an industry worth more than £100 billion to the UK economy. In 2015, UK food exports to the EU were worth £11 billion, while food imports from the EU were worth £28 billion. The British Retail Consortium has established that the average tariff on food products imported from the EU could be in the order of 22%, with tariffs on Irish cheddar, for instance, being as high as 44%. I will not go into the detail of the Environment Secretary’s view on what we should do about that; one is reminded of “Wallace and Gromit” as much as anything else. The overall impact of that tariff—the Environment Secretary could not answer this point at the Select Committee—could be an increase in cheese prices of between 6% and 32% for consumers in this country. This is about workers’ rights but it is also about consumers. It is about the impact on the prices of everyday food staples, and on consumer choice.
The food and drink sector relies on the efficient, just-in-time movement of goods between EU countries in the context both of finished goods and the industry’s complex supply chain arrangements, which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) mentioned. This is not just a “nice to have” arrangement; it is an essential part of modern manufacturing processes. Just-in-time delivery not only ensures high quality, especially of perishable goods—the freshness and quality of the products on the shelf—but is very important for customer service. It is the same in the steel industry: in my constituency, just-in-time delivery of supply chain components and of products out of the plant is just as important for customer service as the quality and standards of the goods.
The next-day delivery of highly perishable produce—this is particularly pertinent to the food industry—is currently possible, yet the Bill threatens to put up barriers to this remarkable aspect of modern-day European Union trade. It is therefore imperative that the frictionless movement of goods across our borders remains in place, especially as far as the land border with Ireland is concerned. Anything else will have a seriously detrimental effect on the food and drink industry.
Equally, the lack of a commitment in the Bill to remain in the EU VAT area may mean that UK businesses face cash-flow issues, as well as customs delays, at the border. Many other Members have mentioned that today, but the point cannot be reiterated frequently enough, because it is so important. UK businesses are incredibly worried about the impact on cash flow if we get this wrong.
This is the wrong Bill. There is no doubt in my mind that this should have been a Bill that confirmed an intention to keep us in the customs union to secure our economic future. While the country may have voted to sever its political union with the European Union, it did not vote to leave the customs union. I know that view has frequently been challenged by Government Members today, but I repeat the point that membership of the customs union and the single market was not on the ballot paper, and this country certainly did not vote to be poorer.
I recall the words of the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who made the point in a debate in Committee on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that one of the responsibilities of this House is to deploy its judgment and to bear in mind that future generations will judge us on the judgments that we make. Many Members of the House believe that if we get this wrong—if we get this Bill wrong—future generations will pay the price, and that is not a risk that many of us are prepared to take.
Such is the importance of the Bill that it is absolutely imperative for it to have thorough scrutiny in both Houses, but the Government seem determined to avoid proper scrutiny by using the Ways and Means procedure to determine that this is a money Bill. I have no intention, Mr Speaker, of dictating what your decision should be. All I am attempting to do is to make the argument that this Bill is so important and so far-reaching in its implications that it would be a disservice to democracy for it to be characterised as a mere money Bill. This legislation is far from that: it is global in importance and profound in its potential impact on the UK’s economic future. On those grounds, I hope you will give serious consideration to ensuring that members of the other place get their chance to scrutinise the Bill meaningfully.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
After the successful conclusion of the first phase of our Brexit negotiations last month, it is great to see Ministers pressing forward to build our future trading relationship with Europe and the rest of the world. This Bill, as Opposition and Government Members have identified, will be critical in establishing the framework within which that trade is conducted. It is of huge significance to my constituents in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland and for the people of Teesside as a whole. I never forget that the north-east is the only net exporting region of England. In that regard, there are two main elements that I want to address tonight. The first is trade remedies, which are vital for the UK and Teesside steel industries, and the second is the special customs procedures that will be central in allowing Teesside to fulfil our ambition to host the first free port in the UK after Brexit.
Turning first to steel, as we know, the past two decades have been extremely challenging for the industry. Most recently, a combination of a surplus of global production, shamelessly exploited by the Chinese to dump steel, and our high domestic industrial energy costs led to the crisis experienced by the industry in 2015, but the steel sector remains a cornerstone and an enabling sector of our wider economy. The Government’s own study of the future of the industry estimates a massive £3.8 billion opportunity in steel demand by 2030. That progress, however, depends in large part on having a strong trade remedies regime, which brings me back to the Bill.
I am a passionate advocate of free trade, but free trade does not mean trade without rules. State-subsidised exports and those dumped at artificially low rates are a distortion of the free market. Steel producers, as people in Redcar and Cleveland know only too well, are particularly vulnerable to unacceptable trade practices. As the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) identified, more than one third of the 92 EU trade remedy measures currently in place appertain to steel. It is therefore critical that our post-Brexit trade remedies framework is robust and firm. On the whole, I am confident that the Bill will deliver that, but there are three areas where I believe improvements could be made.
Given that the Financial Secretary has already been generous enough to meet me before Christmas and that the Minister for Trade Policy has agreed to meet me later in the week, I will limit myself to touching on those areas in outline. First, there is the broad lack of detail. For example, there is currently very little detail of how investigations by the Trade Remedies Authority will be conducted and remedies applied. There is also uncertainty about how injury to producers will be calculated and quantified. Finally, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to overturn TRA recommendations on the grounds of public interest, but it is not yet clear how that public interest will be defined. I urge Ministers to put more detail into the Bill where possible. Where such technical details would be inappropriate, I encourage them to publish secondary legislation as soon as possible, even if only in draft. Although I appreciate that some of the finer details may depend on the outcome of the negotiations, some clearly do not.
Secondly, although it is entirely reasonable that an economic interest test is conducted by the TRA prior to the recommendation of definitive measures, it is not clear why such a test is required before the recommendation of provisional measures. My concern here is time. The reason provisions measures exist at all is that trade investigations can necessarily be lengthy and it may take some time before the authority reaches a definitive decision. It is possible that a great deal of damage could be inflicted on our domestic producers before a definitive investigation could be completed. Will the Minister therefore agree to review the extent to which the economic interest test may delay provisional measures, especially those safeguarding against a flood of exports?
Finally, the Bill states that the TRA will be unable to open an investigation if the UK market share of a domestic industry filing a complaint is below a certain threshold, which is as yet unspecified. That provision will leave many producers uncertain whether or not they fall within the scope of the Bill’s protections. In addition, while I understand the rationale for requiring a threshold in theory, I am concerned that a too onerous threshold could serve to undermine the World Trade Organisation right for infant industries to seek protection and also to prevent industries that mainly export from seeking relief.
The special customs procedures outlined in the Bill will be central to allowing Teesport to fulfil its ambition of being the first major free port in the UK. A free port, for Members who are not aware of the concept, is an area that is physically within a country but legally outside it for customs purposes. Goods that enter a free port do not incur import duty. Instead, import duty is paid only when goods pass from the free port into the domestic economy. The hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who is not in her place but it is so good to see her back in the House today, made a very good case for why Redcar and, by extension, Teesside are so well qualified to host the first free port in the UK after Brexit.
Worldwide, there are approximately 3,500 free ports located in 135 countries. We do not have any. Our membership of the customs union and the stringent state aid regime have acted as a block on their creation. Brexit therefore presents a fantastic opportunity to introduce free ports in the UK.
Teesport handles more than 5,000 vessels each year and about 40 million tonnes of cargo on an estate covering almost 800 acres. Situated immediately adjacent to the mayoral development corporation, Teesport is undergoing huge investment to prepare it to rival the largest ports in Europe. It has all the qualities that will allow it to prosper as an international hub for trade and supply chain processing. A free port at Teesport would aid the Government’s wider objectives of rebalancing the economy from south to north and from the service sector to manufacturing.
To that end, I am pleased that the Bill makes express reference to free ports and sets out the regulatory framework under which a free port would operate. My only request to the Minister is to provide additional clarity on paragraph 9 in part 4 of schedule 2, which states that processing in a free port could take place only if
“the processing of the…imported goods…results in the production or manufacture of other goods in which the imported goods can be identified”.
I would be grateful if the Minister gave examples of which manufacturing processes would and would not be permitted under that definition. That is important because it will mould the future shape of free ports in this country by determining the extent of the economic activity that may take place within them. To my mind, it is important that at this early stage, we maximise flexibility so as not to unduly hinder the new and unique opportunities that an independent trade and customs regime will bring.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Any changes to taxation on cross-border trade between the UK and the European Union after Brexit will inevitably lead to some friction for companies exporting to or importing from the rest of the EU. Whatever scheme is negotiated—if, indeed, any is—it will inevitably lead to greater costs and more bureaucracy.
As an EU member state, we are part of the customs union and the common external tariff, because of which goods produced in the EU are not liable for further duties as they cross either way over the border between the UK and the EU. After Brexit, businesses will be required to make customs declarations on trade between the UK and the EU. HMRC estimates that the number of customs declarations will increase fivefold from the current 55 million to 255 million when we leave the EU and that the number of businesses going through the customs process will increase from 170,000 to 300,000.
The existing declarations system is 25 years old and is to be replaced. The new system, known as the customs declaration system, which was originally designed to accommodate changes to EU customs legislation that take effect in 2020, will be available only two months before the Government’s proposed Brexit date of 29 March 2019 if there is no transitional period. The customs declarations system is part of changes to more than 250 existing projects—a crazy amount of work to overcome in such a short period of time. That presents a strong argument for remaining part of the customs union, at least for a transitional period. In my view, we should do so not only for a transitional period, but beyond it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) pointed out the importance of the EU VAT area, of which we are part. When we trade within the EU, it is effectively VAT free. If we leave the EU VAT area, companies will pay VAT up front at the borders, adding to bureaucratic costs and hitting the cash flow of many companies, especially those that are small or medium-sized. That will be exacerbated further, given that many in industry believe that whole swathes of the SME sector are not prepared for what is coming down the road with Brexit. Large companies and multinationals are more likely to have the capacity to plan ahead and compensate, as difficult as that will turn out to be for many of them. They have the space to think strategically. Small companies think tactically about the next few months—about getting the next order out of the door.
For the 130,000 companies that will be dealing with customs formalities for the first time, not being part of the customs union will come as a shock to the system. In oral evidence to the Treasury Committee, Martin McTague, the policy director for the Federation of Small Businesses, said that small companies will be less likely to be prepared:
“If the past is anything to go by, it will probably be the back end of 2018 before some people wake up to what is going to happen. If we are about to drop off a cliff in April 2019, they will be completely ill-prepared for that and it will almost certainly result in business failures.”
In my view, if that were to happen, it would undermine the SME sector, which is the engine room of the economy.
Nationally, 8% of all jobs are in manufacturing. In Sedgefield, it is almost 26%—one in four. Durham and the Tees Valley is a major location for business and science research and development. I want that to continue. That is probably one of the reasons why, according to a recent North East England chamber of commerce survey, 52% of north-east businesses want to remain in the single market and the customs union and 60% want to see at least a transitional period of three years; why 53% believe that the UK’s Brexit objectives should be revisited following the general election result; and why 54% disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that the best interests of business are being prioritised by the Government ahead of Brexit negotiations.
The customs union and access to the single market are important to the economy, especially in the north-east. Latest figures show that 61.6% of the region’s exports are to the EU. Some 75% of businesses in the north-east either sold or sourced goods from the European single market. This is obviously not an insignificant number. What bureaucratic and financial burdens are we placing on our industry with changes to our relationship with the EU? We must consider also that the UK has over 60 trading agreements with the rest of the world because of our membership of the customs union.
Some people say there are potential alternatives, but all will harden our borders, make them more difficult to navigate commercially and will not be as frictionless as they are now. We may do all we can to reinvent the wheel, but I believe we will find that whatever reinvention we come up with will not be as round as the original. I want to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on restating Labour’s position to remain as part of the customs union and single market for a transitional period, but it should not just be for the transitional period; it needs to be for good. If we want to end austerity, invest in our public services and protect and create jobs, we need to be in the customs union and the single market. For me, not to be in both and to have an anti-austerity strategy is dishonest and fantasy economics.
Sedgefield is home to the largest business park in the north-east. It is my duty to explain to my constituents what could be the repercussions of leaving the customs union, since many of their livelihoods depend on the consequences of Brexit, and I will continue to do so.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson). To the relief of all Members, I will be mercifully brief.
The UK is an international hub for foreign direct investment and seeks to encourage international trade. Recent FDI figures show that the UK has had a record number of inward investment projects and created the second-highest number of jobs ever in 2015-16. The UK remains the No. 1 investment destination in Europe. Leaving the EU does not see the end of this attitude. On the contrary, it is the Government’s aim to continue moving forward with securing deals that will boost our trade relationships with our friends and allies.
The Bill seeks to create a lasting framework for the UK customs regime. It is therefore vital to businesses and jobs in all our constituencies. Many will know that the oil industry is very important to the north-east of Scotland. The importance of securing the best customs deal possible after leaving the EU is pivotal. Many of these businesses depend on international trade, and their future prosperity will rely on what trade deal we can secure moving forward. I think of companies such as Flowline in Oldmeldrum, where 60% of turnover is from exports, the STATS Group in Kintore, and the Hydro Group in the Bridge of Don, which exports umbilicals around the world. The narrative should focus not on the fear and uncertainty around Brexit but on the potential opportunities. Aker Solution, in Dyce, a Norwegian company, which sees the opportunities in the middle east, is investing in the United Kingdom. It probably does not give two hoots about the detail but expects us to be ready.
There is a multitude of opportunities for trade in a post-Brexit world, and the Government will ensure that our relationship with the EU in future is stronger than ever. They will seek to protect that relationship. It would appear, however, that those on the Opposition Benches are entrenched in their traditional positions. In opposing all things Brexit, Liberal Democrat Members are at least consistent: they want to ignore the vote, although, some 10 years ago, their former leader Nick Clegg called for an in/out referendum on the EU. They are, at least, open about their objectives.
The Scottish National party is very interested in any tax Bill. It likes raising taxes, saddling Scotland with the highest taxes in the United Kingdom, which, I fear, is not so good for business. SNP Members’ opposition to the Bill is based on the fact that the Government cannot give cast-iron guarantees, although they know that there are unanswered questions. That amazes me. Who would think that the SNP were so conservative as to hanker after the known rather than ploughing an independent furrow?
I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said about the software required for the customs systems. As a recipient of the single farm payment from the Scottish rural payments service, I understand why she is concerned. The computer system has cost £178 million to date, which is double what it should have cost. It still does not work after four years, and it has caused hardship. Perhaps the hon. Lady could have a word with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that it does not buy its software system from the same company.
Meanwhile, Labour Members have myriad reasons for opposing the Bill, the main one being that we are not ready. They wish to block the legislation that will prepare us, although, as many Members have pointed out, it seeks to protect home producers against dumping, prepares ro-ro ports to be ready, lodging declarations at sea or before embarkation, and gives us the tools to deal with customs unions. Businesses want us to be prepared and employees want us to be prepared, so I ask Members to support the Bill tonight.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Last July, the North East England chamber of commerce—which represents about 3,000 businesses of all sizes across the region, and therefore several thousand more jobs—set out its five key priorities for the Brexit negotiations. Back then, it said:
“Uncertainty has been a condition that the business community and wider economy has had to deal with since the EU referendum. We need a positive and consultative approach to Brexit that causes minimum disruption to our businesses across the region throughout these negotiations and further.
This is particularly important for our invaluable international traders who are having to deal with fluctuations in sterling and potential changes to the way they may have to trade in the future.”
It went on to set out two of its five key Brexit priorities:
“A new trading relationship with the EU that gives our exporters frictionless and un-bureaucratic access to European markets”,
and
“A positive and consultative approach to Brexit that causes minimum disruption to business interests, particularly for those who trade overseas.”
It is difficult to emphasise enough just how critical achieving those priorities is for the economy of the north-east, which, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), is the only part of the UK that consistently exports more than it imports. Some 61% of the region’s exports currently go to the EU, which makes it our largest market by some measure. As the House of Commons Library has previously stated, the proportion in the north-east, along with that in Wales, is higher than in any other country or region in the UK. The north-east is therefore significantly exposed to the effects of a bad deal, and to the frankly unthinkable prospect of no deal at all.
What does the Bill actually offer to the north-east’s businesses, and, indeed, to businesses throughout the country, in terms of the ability to plan for the future? How will it help to deliver the frictionless and unbureaucratic two-way access to European markets and the minimum disruption which are needed by the north-east’s firms and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that they support, with many of the region’s exporters having EU-based firms as part of their supply chain? I do not know the answer to that, but what it does provide is a very real prospect of endless red tape and customs duties on goods traded with the EU, which may or may not be levied after Brexit, and for which those firms may or may not need to prepare and budget. That depends entirely on the Prime Minister’s ability to deliver a Brexit deal to British businesses and consumers.
As a result of the Bill, some 130,000 UK firms face the possibility of paying VAT upfront for the first time on all goods imported from the EU, with all the bureaucratic nightmares and cash-flow crises that that will create. Indeed, one of the north-east international trade advisers has told me:
“This will be a huge concern to all importers, but in particular to those who won’t yet know the consequences because they only currently import from the EU. The issue of managing cashflow will become a major problem because businesses will have to pay out VAT, and then claim it back through their VAT return three or six months down the line.”
Understandably, they want to know what support the Government will provide to help the region’s firms through a significant period of adjustment, and so do I and my colleagues.
What impact assessment have the Government carried out of the proposals for the stand-alone UK customs regime contained in the Bill, and of its effects and costs for businesses of all sizes up and down the country? Given that a recent Federation of Small Businesses survey found that small businesses already spend one working week every year complying with their existing VAT obligations, is it not crystal clear that the Bill will have serious implications for UK productivity rates, projections for which have already been seriously downgraded in the autumn Budget? What effect do Ministers think the Bill’s proposals will have on the many ports, airports and rail terminals across the UK, including Newcastle international airport and the Port of Tyne in the north-east? Who will foot the bill for any necessary infrastructure changes?
Perhaps equally importantly, what evidence is there that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be able to cope with what is being proposed, after years of staff reductions, office closures and the loss of senior experience? Indeed, when I asked the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales during a Treasury Select Committee session last month whether it thought that HMRC had the capacity to manage the myriad challenges thrown up by Brexit, I was told:
“We all saw the evidence session where HMRC’s CEO was up before the Public Accounts Committee, and indeed he has been in front of this Committee as well. The clear message there is that HMRC has the largest change-management project currently in Europe in terms of its regionalisation of its computer systems, and their CEO was clearly worried that adding Brexit on top of that is potentially going to push HMRC over the edge. That was the clear message.”
The ICAEW went on to comment:
“It is quite clear that the CEO of HMRC is worried about Brexit, if you like, being the straw that broke the camel’s back. If the CEO of HMRC is worried, it is fair to say that it clearly worries us as well...We need to have an honest and realistic assessment of the capabilities of HMRC in this climate, and what is going to be needed in terms of Brexit, and an honest assessment of whether they can do it all.”
This does not exactly inspire confidence, and I am sure that it will make concerning reading for firms up and down the country.
Finally, I want to touch on the concerns being expressed by a number of international development non-governmental organisations in relation to this legislation. It is a matter of particular concern that the Bill refers to the set of criteria to which the Treasury must have regard when considering the rate of import and export duty to impose under the proposed new regime, but that no reference is made in the legislation to the principle of sustainable development or to the UK’s commitment to the sustainable development goals. I therefore join organisations such as Traidcraft and the Fairtrade Foundation in urging the Government to rectify this by making the principle of sustainable development and the SDGs a core consideration. In an article published during last year’s Fairtrade fortnight, I wrote:
“As part of its proud history of leading the way on international development, the UK has long championed the hugely important role that trade can play in improving living standards around the world. So, just as nobody wants to see Brexit weaken the countless EU-derived protections we all benefit from in the UK—whether employment rights, environmental legislation or consumer standards—nor must it result in making life even harder for some of the poorest producers in the world.”
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It has been a great pleasure to listen to the debate tonight. I have always said that when it comes to EU negotiations, the devil is in the detail. It has been good to hear many Members discussing real detail tonight, because that will give us more confidence that we will be able to address the specifics in the negotiations ahead.
Some colleagues have suggested that we should try to maintain the status quo and stay in the customs union permanently, but I do not believe that that is practicable. I speak not only as a former Member of the European Parliament but as the person who chaired the European Parliament’s Committee responsible for the customs union. Staying in the customs union might help to sort out our trade with Europe, but what would it do for our trade with the rest of the world? Perhaps we would be able to negotiate to continue the existing free trade agreements that Europe has with other parts of the world, but the EU does not stand still. It will be negotiating new trade agreements. Trade negotiations are always controversial and always involve trade-offs. British interests are not always directly aligned with the rest of the EU, and having to accept future trade deals without any say over the terms is not a practicable solution, so a new relationship with the EU is needed.
It is also not practicable simply to do nothing and to try to cut and paste the relationships that we have with other parts of the world on to our trade with the EU. That particularly applies to our trade across the channel, because the journey times are too short for paperwork to be processed and the trade volumes are too high. There would be delays, which would push up costs and raise prices, hitting the interests of consumers and businesses on both sides of the channel. It is therefore good that both the UK Government and Governments across Europe are looking at bespoke solutions, and the Bill keeps our options open, including the potential for a customs union with the customs union, which may be the exact sort of deep partnership we look for in the future.
It is important to look at the detail. Import VAT and when it falls due is really important for small businesses in all our constituencies, but the Government have recognised the issue and do not want small businesses to face more costs. The Manufacturers’ Alliance has pointed to concerns about the detailed methodology on calculating remedies, the supremacy of the lesser duty rule, and the timing and nature of the economic interest test, but all those issues can be dealt with in Committee and are not good reasons to vote against the Government tonight. There is the really important issue of the cumulative rules of origin, which are vital for advanced manufacturing and the car sector, but Ministers have again made it clear that they are aware of the issue, which affects manufacturers on both sides of the channel.
In an ideal world, we would want our future customs relationship to be agreed before we agree the legislation here, but we are not in a position to do that. Any future trade deal with Europe needs all 27 other countries to agree to it, and we need to be ready to act with whatever the solution is. I am particularly pleased that Ministers have said that they are committed to delivering either the streamlined customs arrangement or a new customs partnership, and I urge Ministers and Governments on both sides of the channel not to give up on an innovative solution yet, because it is in the interests of businesses and consumers on both sides of the channel to find and deliver such solutions.
Mr Leslie
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Bill that we are discussing has been designated as an aids and supplies Bill, and potentially as a money Bill, which I understand is in your gift at the end of the Commons proceedings. Could you confirm that no decision is imminent on your part on the designation of the legislation as a money Bill? I am not seeking a ruling from you this evening, but perhaps you could reflect on whether it is fair use of procedure for the Government to have unilaterally designated the Bill as an aids and supplies Bill, because there are measures in the Bill, particularly in relation to the customs union, that the other place might have a great appetite for amending. Obviously it is not for us to determine the procedures that take place in the House of Lords, and while that is not a matter for you, will you confirm that you have not yet made a decision on the designation of this Bill as a money Bill and that, as far as you are concerned, the House of Lords can do what it will with the Bill, should it pass to the other end of the building?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that I am making no decision at all at present about the certification of a money Bill. Such decisions do fall to the Chair from time to time, but they tend to be made at a slightly later stage in the process, and I will not be making a decision tonight. More widely, the hon. Gentleman advances an argument about what he thinks are appropriate arrangements in respect of the Bill, given its contents and implications, and I will reflect carefully upon what he and other Members have said. I hope that that is hopeful to Members and to the House.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
A happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all hon. Members in the Chamber.
This Bill and the Trade Bill, which we will consider tomorrow, could have a significant impact on Britain’s future prosperity. By determining arrangements for governing cross-border trade, customs duty and tariffs, they will decide how our country governs its commerce with the rest of the world. Sadly, as the Bills reveal, rather than proceeding with the task in a transparent way, the Government are again using Brexit as an excuse to allocate themselves more powers, which is incredibly dangerous. Decisions about trade can create jobs, but can also, of course, destroy jobs.
We have heard powerful contributions from Opposition Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) talked about the beef and dairy sectors, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) talked about vehicle manufacturing. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) talked generally about manufacturing and the danger of an ill thought through approach, given the impact it could have on jobs.
It is surely a fundamental principle that there should not be taxation without representation. As is recognised in the very name of the Bill, customs charges and duties, as well as import and export quotas, are effectively forms of taxation. Rather than enabling proper scrutiny and debate on decision making in this area, we see here the same trick that has repeatedly been evident with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the last two Finance Bills: more power to the centre and less power for Parliament. Many concerns about that point were eloquently expressed by Opposition Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).
Labour has four core objections to the Bill that motivate our reasoned amendment, and I will run through them briefly in turn. First, there must be much more parliamentary oversight of our future customs and tariff regimes. We will table amendments in Committee to set out workable arrangements to ensure that governmental decisions are subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and, in particular, why the Government should use amendable resolutions, not ministerial fiat, when deciding important issues such as changing customs tariffs, preferential rates for different countries and remedies for different international trade disputes. Only in that way can Parliament exercise its voice so that parliamentarians whose constituencies could be significantly affected by ill thought through measures can challenge those measures in this place.
I underline that only Labour’s reasoned amendment stresses the need for this, our British Parliament, to prevent yet another wholesale land grab by the Government, in this case on customs duties, charges and quotas—I hope that answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). It is only Labour’s reasoned amendment that concisely and clearly underlines this democratic deficit. In that regard, we heard prescient points from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who indicated how some of these measures might be overreaching in their scope. He also made important points about Northern Ireland and Ireland that were echoed by many other colleagues.
Labour’s second problem with the Bill is that it fails to offer businesses and manufacturers the certainty that they desperately need about the UK’s future customs regime. That was pithily expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who set out how, despite some of the perhaps ill thought through noises off from Conservative Members, the reality for many British businesses is that the vast majority of their trade is going to be with the rest of the EU. We therefore need a serious debate about our future customs arrangements. Of course, as was underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), our relationship with other countries is often governed by our relationship with the EU, because trade and customs arrangements are currently set through the EU.
On the problem about the lack of certainty for industry under the Government’s proposals, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) hit the nail on the head when he said that this Government’s current approach is simply to pat Parliament on the head and say, “Everything will be all right. Don’t worry, it will be all right on the night.” I often enjoy the Minister’s contributions, which tend to be detailed, but he used a strange formulation when he spoke about this point earlier. He said that the Bill—I hope I am quoting him word for word—will “facilitate whatever the will of Parliament ends up being”. The point is that in these negotiations, unfortunately, we are not talking about the will of Parliament, because the Government have in many cases ignored our will. Instead we are talking about what the will of the Government happens to be, and it seems to be one that they want to exercise as freely and unaccountably as possible.
I felt that we got a bit of a reality check from some of the Minister’s other comments. When he was talking about VAT, we heard something that contradicted that previous statement. He said that after the passage of this Bill, it will be up to the Government to decide exactly where we end up on what VAT arrangements will be for British businesses. We are therefore talking about the Government determining taxation arrangements without a proper parliamentary process. On VAT, I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) again doggedly pursuing the issues she has raised many times about the lack of certainty for small businesses on VAT, given the Government’s current approach.
The Minister said it would be “possible” to have continued engagement with the EU on VAT, but we are not talking about possible or potential businesses; we are talking about real businesses that could have real cash-flow problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said clearly, businesses need certainty and they are not currently getting it.
Labour is also concerned about the burden of these new approaches on customs arrangements for HMRC, which, as we know, is already struggling to deal with its existing tasks, even without the upheaval caused by a potential new customs arrangement. Since 2010, one in six HMRC staff has been lost, and we urgently need the Government to recognise the need for a better resourced HMRC in their proposals. That point was forcefully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
Finally, Labour is of course deeply concerned about the Government’s untried, untested and undemocratic approach to trade remedies. As a former MEP, I have seen for myself how the British Government seem keen to push for EU markets, including the UK’s, to be opened up to unfair competition from countries unwilling to hold to trading and human rights rules as part of the debate on most favoured nation status for China. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) expressed his legitimate concerns about the Government’s approach, given the importance of the steel industry to his constituency. That industry has already suffered substantially because of dumping. Similar points were made eloquently by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Again, we see the Conservative Government trying to push through new measures that would disadvantage our industries.
The new authority will be debated in more detail tomorrow, but this Bill gives it its powers. It is essential that the body is truly independent and representative of our economy, and that it is staffed not by chums and ideological bedfellows, but by those who know how trade really works: British businesses; our trade unionists, representing workers; and those from the devolved Administrations who can reflect the specific challenges they face. The Trade Remedies Authority cannot be a creature solely of the International Trade Secretary. It should be accountable to Parliament so that parliamentarians can reflect the concerns of our constituents. Disturbingly, we already see that the parameters for the new trade remedies regime set out in this Bill are far weaker than those that even the EU itself is moving towards, and certainly than those exercised already by comparable countries.
We have heard many excellent speeches from Members on both sides of the House, but I particularly want to say how welcome it was to see my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), with her typical energy, advocating the interests of her constituents in this debate. Many of us, particularly Labour Members, have tried hard to say how we really need a customs regime that is accountable and workable, and that favours the interests of not only consumers, but producers—Great British producers. The Government’s proposals do not remotely measure up to that mark, so I hope that hon. Members will support Labour’s reasoned amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mark Garnier)
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. It is a great pleasure and an honour as a trade Minister to close the debate on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, on which my colleagues in the Treasury lead. However, the fact that a trade Minister is closing the debate is not only indicative of the unity of purpose across our Government to deliver critical legislation, but demonstrates how important our future trading relationship will be after we leave the European Union. As a country, we need to create the structures and legislation that will form the framework of our new, home-grown, global trading relationships, which will embrace the entire world.
Before turning to the specifics, I remind the House of the context of our discussion today. As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made clear, when Britain leaves the European Union in March 2019, it will also leave the customs union and the single market. Many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, have claimed that during the referendum campaign, people were not told that we would leave the customs union and the single market. However, I was proud to stand as a remainer with Opposition Members, and I certainly said that we would leave the customs union and the single market if we left the European Union. The British public were well informed about what was happening with Brexit.
The key issue now is what kind of relationship we will have with the European Union from 29 March 2019. On customs, the Government have been clear that they will be guided by what delivers the greatest economic advantage to the UK. They have set out their objectives for any future relationship: an independent trade policy; trade with the EU that is as frictionless as possible; and avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
The progression of the negotiations to the next phase means that we can now look forward to discussing our future customs arrangements with the EU. In that context, the Bill is especially vital to the UK’s preparations for EU withdrawal. Just as it allows the Government to establish a stand-alone customs regime and ensure that VAT and excise legislation operates as required on EU exit, it also gives the UK the ability to respond to a range of outcomes to the EU negotiations.
Several issues have been raised, particularly on VAT. The hon. Members for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) mentioned an impact assessment on the effect of the VAT regime. I make two points on that. First, we cannot do an impact assessment of any meaningful depth until we know exactly what deal has been achieved with the EU. Until we reach that point, any impact assessment will be merely a random guess. Secondly, the Chancellor in his autumn statement made the incredibly important point that he will do everything he can to mitigate the effects of the changes to the VAT regime as we change it under the Bill.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), made an impassioned speech about free trade ports in her constituency. She asked a couple of important questions. The first was whether the Government were supportive of free trade zones. The simple answer is yes, but with a caveat that we need to understand them a great deal more. Her second question was whether the Government would advocate Teesport as a free trade port. She made a strong case for that—she speaks very well on behalf of her constituents. The Government will be very happy to engage with her and hear her case for that.
It is incredibly important that we understand how ports will work. My hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) all appealed for the ability for ports to work efficiently. The Government well understand that roll-on roll-off ports working efficiently is one of the most important things we can achieve in the negotiations. We fully understand the problems that would arise if there were a hold-up in port.
The hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), for Nottingham East and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) asked about the CDS. HMRC will start migrating traders to the CDS in August 2018 to allow a six-month period for transition to all users by 2019. To reduce the risk at the point of exit, HMRC will continue to operate the current CHIEF system in tandem.
I do not want to go on too long, but I will quickly make a point about trade remedies. The framework will provide UK industry with a safety net against injury caused by unfair trading practices and by unforeseen surges of imports. It will be a key part of ensuring an effective rules-based system for a fully functioning independent trade policy. It is important that the lesser duty rule provides for proportionate protections which remove injury to UK industry without unnecessary costs, and the economic interest test will provide a sensor check to ensure that measures are not imposed where they might have a disproportionate impact on the wider economy. The UK market is a relatively small but complex market, and the effect on competition and consumers of duties that are too high could be significant. Both the economic interest test and the lesser duty rule have been designed with that in mind.
In conclusion, the UK has set out our ideas for how future customs relationships with the EU can work. As our negotiations with the EU progress to the next phase, it is only right that the Government take whatever steps they can to ensure that they can effectively implement a new regime. On customs, VAT and excise, and indeed in relation to some aspects of our future trade policy, that is precisely what the Bill will do, by taking the sensible step of providing the Government with the ability to put in place responses to a range of possible outcomes from the negotiations. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will support this crucial legislation, as the Government continue to put into action the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 25th January 2018
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 January 2018 - (25 Jan 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, everybody. Before we start, I will read out a few paragraphs about Committee arrangements. Some people are extremely familiar with all of this and a few are not, so just bear with me. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chair do not intend to call starred amendments, which have not been tabled with adequate notice. The required notice period in Public Bill Committees is three working days. Therefore amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday, and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on Tuesday.
Not everyone is familiar with the procedure of Public Bill Committees, so let me briefly explain how we will proceed. The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows how the amendments selected for debate have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar and related issue. The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in the group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye in order to speak to the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once depending on the subjects under discussion.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendments in the group to a Division, they will need to let me know. I will work on the assumption that the Government wish the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments.
Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order that they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. Decisions on new clauses will therefore be taken at the conclusion of the line by line consideration of the Bill. Where it is not already indicated on the selection list, Mrs Main and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses or individual schedules.
Clause stand part debates begin with the Chair proposing the Question, “That the clause stand part of the Bill.” There is no need for the Minister, or any other Member, to move that a clause stand part of the Bill. We now move to line by line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 1
Charge to import duty
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
Good morning, Ms Buck; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is also a pleasure to see some familiar faces on the Opposition Benches as we debate this important Bill.
Clause 1 provides that customs duty is to be charged with reference to the import of goods into the United Kingdom, in accordance with part 1 of this Bill; part 1, of course, deals with import duty. As members of the Committee will be aware, the UK’s current customs duty regime is set out in EU law. That legislation will cease to apply to the United Kingdom following our departure from the EU. This Bill makes provision for the establishment of a UK customs duty regime. The regime established by this Bill seeks as far as possible to replicate the effects of the existing EU provision. The aim of doing so is to ensure that on day one, operators who currently pay EU customs duty will see very little change in the process that is to apply following the establishment of the new UK regime. Clause 1 establishes the new charge to tax and provides that import duty is to be chargeable. Such a provision is a fundamental requirement of any tax regime.
Clause 2 provides the definition of chargeable goods, a term used throughout the provisions relating to import duty. The concept of goods being chargeable is fundamental to any import duty regime and therefore its meaning needs to be set out explicitly on the face of the Bill. As I explained, part 1 of the Bill sets out the UK’s new regime for import duty, which will be needed once we complete the process of withdrawal from the European Union. In doing so, it takes as its starting point the EU legislation, which currently provides the rules for import duty, and replicates them within domestic legislation. The virtue of doing so is that the majority of importers will see no change to the process by which they pay import duty. This principle applies to rules for determining which goods are liable for import duty or, to use the language of clause 2, to the way in which “chargeable goods” are defined.
Clause 2 is relatively straightforward. It sets out the basis upon which customs duty is to be charged. Clearly not all goods are liable for customs duty. The most obvious examples are goods that were made in the United Kingdom and have never left the country, or goods from abroad on which duty has already been paid. Clause 2 therefore uses the concept of domestic goods to define when goods are not to be treated as chargeable for the purposes of customs duty. It sets out that chargeable goods are any goods that are not domestic goods.
Domestic goods are defined in clause 33, and Members will have the opportunity to consider that definition in greater detail later in Committee. In essence, domestic goods are any goods on which no import duty is due, either because any duty has already been paid or because they were manufactured in, or originate in, the United Kingdom.
Clause 2 is straightforward. The concept of goods being chargeable forms a fundamental cornerstone of the UK’s import duty regime. I therefore recommend that both clauses stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Obligation to declare goods for a Customs procedure on import
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 3 does two important things: first, it establishes an obligation to declare goods that are imported into the United Kingdom; and, secondly, it introduces the concept of declaring goods for a specific customs procedure. Those are the basic building blocks of the UK’s new import duty regime.
The need to declare goods for a customs procedure is fundamental to any import duty regime. The procedure for which goods are declared determines when liability to import duty arises. The clause goes on to introduce another fundamental part of a customs regime—the customs procedures for which chargeable goods may be declared.
The purpose of importing goods may be to make them available for use in the UK, in which case they can be declared for a procedure known as free circulation, at which point they incur a charge to import duty. However, it is not always the intention to make goods freely available when they are imported into the United Kingdom. Goods are often brought to the UK for different reasons, such as to put them into customs warehouses for the time being, or to transport them through the UK on the way to another destination outside the country. In situations such as those, a business may declare the goods for a special customs procedure.
Special procedures either defer when a liability to import duty is incurred, or reduce the rate of import duty applicable to goods, provided of course the relevant conditions have been satisfied. Without those procedures, a business would have no option but to declare imported goods for the free circulation procedure and incur any import duty up front.
UK businesses currently rely extensively on special procedures, which together provide reliefs worth hundreds of millions of pounds each month. The provision made by the clause is supplemented by the detailed rules set out in schedules 1 and 2, to which I shall now turn.
Schedule 1 sets out the obligations to present and declare goods to customs on import. Many of the matters covered are of an administrative nature, such as the information that a declaration must contain or the time limits for when it must be made. I am sure that the Committee would not wish me to explain all those matters in detail, but I should highlight one important matter in which I think the Committee will be interested.
Paragraph 3 of the schedule enables Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to specify when goods must be declared before they are imported into the UK. That is an important point. Steps might be needed to reduce the risk of disrupting the flow of traffic at locations where goods need to be cleared quickly through customs. An obvious case in point is a port such as Dover, where significant amounts of goods arrive on roll-on roll-off ferries. It would clearly be of great help, in a situation such as that, to require the goods in question to be declared before their arrival at the port. That situation is therefore addressed by the schedule.
Schedule 2 deals with special customs procedures. There are five in all, namely: storage, transit, inward processing, authorised use and temporary admission. I will briefly describe their purpose.
A storage procedure allows imported goods to be stored without incurring liability to import duty. The goods must be kept in an approved facility, such as a customs warehouse or a free zone. There are currently no free zones in the UK, but should an area be so designated, provision may be made under the Bill for its operation.
A transit procedure allows goods to move between two places in the UK without incurring import duty. For example, goods from another country can pass through the UK en route to another destination, or goods within the UK can move from a customs warehouse to a port for re-export without needing to be declared for free circulation.
An inward processing procedure allows goods to be imported into the UK with the purpose of undergoing a qualifying processing activity without incurring a charge to import duty at that point. Once the procedure is discharged, goods may be exported without any import duty being due. Alternatively, a business may decide to declare the processed goods for free circulation in the UK and incur duty at that point.
An authorised use procedure is designed to assist certain industries by allowing a zero or reduced rate of import duty to apply to goods brought to the UK for a specific use. Finally, a temporary admission procedure allows for a relief from import duty for goods that enter the UK temporarily and for a particular reason. For example, that procedure applies when artworks situated overseas are brought to the UK on loan for display in a public gallery.
Taken together, the special procedures I have outlined exist to support trade fluidity and facilitate the movement of goods into the UK. Provision made by and under schedule 2 will allow HMRC to operate these special procedures. The obligation to declare imported goods is essential to an effective customs regime, and an effective customs regime must include special procedures that offer businesses in the UK the simplifications and reliefs that they rely on.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee, and to take part in the scrutiny of this important piece of legislation.
The Minister is right to talk about the administrative nature of the clause and its associated schedules. It appears to be the Government’s position that the UK will choose to leave the customs union. We are not yet clear whether they will pursue another form of customs union with the EU, but if they do not, or if they do not manage to get a customs union with the EU, it is likely that significantly more customs declarations will be required because we will not have those coming from the EU.
My concern about the clause arises from Tuesday’s oral evidence sessions, and it would be useful for the Minister to provide an update on that. Various organisations expressed concerns about the resourcing of HMRC and Border Force. Border Force is the first line for many imports, ensuring that customs declarations are made appropriately and that all appropriate processes are followed.
On HMRC, the concern was that no customs officers will be based north of Glasgow or Edinburgh. If goods are coming in to places such as Inverness, it is a three-hour drive for people to get there and look at those goods. What assessment has the Minister made of the extra resourcing that HMRC will need to fulfil the obligations in the clause and the schedules? Reasonable concerns have been expressed by businesses and organisations.
Mel Stride
I welcome the hon. Lady to the Committee and thank her for that initial contribution.
In terms of where the final deal with the European Union lands, whether we have a form of customs union with the remaining 27 members is subject to negotiation. The Government have made it clear that we wish the end point to be the facilitation of trade between ourselves and the remaining 27 members of the customs union. The Bill provides for that end point to be as close as possible to the existing rules and regulations around the Union customs code; that is very much what the Bill seeks to achieve. At the same time, the Bill retains the flexibility to ensure that we can put into effect the necessary and appropriate measures no matter where the deal lands—or, indeed, if there were to be no deal at all with the European Union, as we certainly do not expect.
The hon. Lady raised the important issue of HMRC resourcing. As we move towards our day one scenario—whatever that may finally look like—I assure her that the Government are vigorously engaged not just with issues around HMRC’s human resource requirements, but with other infrastructure requirements, whether for hard infrastructure or information technology systems such as the Customs Declaration Service, which will be important.
To address her particular issue, the head of HMRC has made it clear that his feeling is that we will need between 3,000 and 5,000 additional staff across HMRC to ensure that we cover off, wherever the day one deal lands. For an organisation of well in excess of 50,000 personnel, such an increment in staffing, particularly given that some will be reallocated rather than entirely new recruits, is perfectly manageable.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to you for being in the Chair, Ms Buck. If I may, I will question the Minister on his explanation. I am grateful for it, but on Tuesday we learned that after HMRC’s ongoing restructuring programme there will not be a single HMRC hub north of Edinburgh and Glasgow, nor will there be one anywhere along the south coast, including Dover. We heard ample evidence in the witness sessions that that is the busiest and most concerning port from the point of view of customs procedures going wrong. In the light of that evidence, should we reconsider that HMRC reorganisation programme?
Mel Stride
I welcome the hon. Lady to the Committee. She mentions the location of the new HMRC hubs as they are rolled out, and I will make two important points. First, Border Force, which is very much part of the frontline, is in the Home Office’s remit, not HMRC’s. Secondly, proximity to the hubs or otherwise is not critical in determining whether HMRC provides the support that Border Force and other agencies require. The absence of a hub close to a need does not mean that HMRC staff cannot be in proximity to that point; they do not need to be based constantly at any one hub.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
May I pick up on that? I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East said, but try to reinforce the seriousness of the evidence witnesses gave on Tuesday. Mr Runswick said:
“HMRC is closing offices in places such as Southampton…So we think that there will be a real struggle to deliver the work that HMRC does with Border Force in that situation. My union believes that HMRC should pause the office closure programme until it is clear what the Government will need HMRC to do in a post-Brexit situation.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 37, Q45.]
I want to tease out a little more from the Minister. Does he recognise that argument at all? It seems to be business as usual.
Mel Stride
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Committee. He reiterates the point that the hon. Lady just made, so I will spare the Committee a repeat of every element of my answer. However, specifically with relation to the points made in the evidence session by Mr Runswick, the trade unions have been resistant to the changes to HMRC wholesale, right across the piece. Therefore, when it comes to arguments about whether HMRC can be effective in clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance, bringing in tax yield and so on, the argument has been run that we need a number of offices in multiple locations to do that.
The critical answer is that the very nature of running an efficient tax system and customs regime needs technology, the right skills and the right people. That lends itself to having a concentration of such individuals in hubs, where skills and IT can be developed and brought in to be effective. Without repeating my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend, the Government and HMRC are clear that the configurations of the new hubs will lend themselves to appropriately support the new customs regime.
Kirsty Blackman
Other than the resourcing, which the Minister has fully addressed, I am concerned about the geographical issue. We do not want people to be a number of hours’ drive from the customs officials. Can the Minister give us some comfort that even though there might not be hubs in the area, there will be customs officers based closely and able to respond on a 24-hour basis?
Mel Stride
I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that the situation as it will pertain when we move to the new hubs—we are making some assumptions about what exactly the end point of the negotiations will be—will be sufficient to make sure we have a customs regime that works, that is low friction, and keeps trade moving and raises revenues on the duties that we may or may not apply.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
On resourcing, to add to the points already made, I want to double-check this because the first time I saw it I did not believe it was true, but it is. In December you asked for volunteers to be deployed to help plug the gaps in the UK’s Border Force. There had already been an acknowledgment that it did not have the number of people needed and you called for volunteers, which was opposed by Conservative MPs, who said they did not want to see a return to a Dad’s Army protecting the UK. Are you still planning to plug the gap with volunteers or will people be employed?
Mel Stride
I will take the hon. Lady’s references to “you” as not meaning the Chair of this Committee, but me. The issue that she has raised, which ran in the press a few weeks ago, relates to an issue for the Home Office and Border Force, not HMRC. It is outside the immediate scope of this Bill. I know that at least one Minister in the Home Office was able to refute those suggestions, but I will not dwell on that in this Committee.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The other thing that came out in the evidence was the concern about the loss of experience at a critical time. Is the Minister giving us a strong assurance—I think he is—that there will not be any problems as we move forward? If there are any problems, the Minister and HMRC will be jointly and severally responsible.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Member for his very helpful intervention. Of course Ministers have responsibilities for the areas that they oversee. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have had discussions with HMRC staff, including the head of HMRC, and we have looked specifically at the right mix of skills and people, so I am confident that we will have the right team in place to meet the challenges ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 4
When liability to import duty incurred
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mel Stride
The clause determines when a liability to import duty is incurred. This is a necessary part of establishing a stand-alone customs regime as both businesses and HMRC need to know the point at which any money is due. The clause sets out a framework for determining the point at which liability to import duty is incurred. The general rule for importers wishing to release their goods for free circulation—that is, to discharge all customs obligations—is that the liability is incurred when HMRC accepts their declaration. For example, if a business were importing electronic goods from east Asia and declared the goods for free circulation, the liability for import duty would arise when HMRC accepts that declaration.
Similarly, the general rule when importing something under the temporary admission or authorised use procedures is that liability is incurred when HMRC accepts the declaration, but at a reduced rate. However, to facilitate trade and support businesses, liability can be deferred. In cases where goods are declared for a transit procedure, inward processing or a storage procedure, liability does not occur at the point when HMRC accepts the declaration, although liability may arise at a later date. The clause also makes further provisions governing these situations, including the consequences for liability purposes of the incorrect usage of the special procedures or their breach. The clause makes it clear when liability to import duty is incurred.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Goods not presented to Customs or Customs declaration not made
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 5 deals with cases where goods imported into the UK are either not presented or not declared to HMRC. Where that is the case, it provides for the goods to be liable for forfeiture. It is essential to have rules that cater for situations in which someone fails to meet their obligations when they import goods into the UK. The clause provides such a rule: it makes imported goods liable to forfeiture if they have not been presented or declared to HMRC. That simply mirrors the existing position in EU law that applies in such cases.
The clause also makes it clear that such goods remain liable to import duty at the same time that they are liable to forfeiture. It is essential that appropriate sanctions are in place to deal with failure to meet the requirements of the import duty regime. That is what clause 5 provides in cases where goods are not present or declared to HMRC.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Person liable to import duty
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 6 establishes who is liable to pay any import duty on goods imported into the United Kingdom. It is essential to establish who is obliged to actually pay import duty when it becomes due. The clause establishes the series of rules that do just that.
The rules set out by the clause illustrate a fundamental principle of the import duty regime, namely the link between the making of a customs declaration and the liability to pay an import duty that might be due. In cases where procedures have been followed correctly and the information provided is accurate, the liability for duty falls upon the person named on the declaration, or on whose behalf the goods have been declared. That could be the importer of the goods and/or an agent appointed to act for them. The basic rule is supplemented by other rules that apply in less straightforward circumstances: for instance, in cases where goods are not declared, the liability to pay duty falls on the person who is in possession or control of the goods when they arrive in the UK.
The clause also caters for other situations in which the rules have not been followed. They include cases where someone has provided false information when they make a declaration, or where they have not followed obligations imposed upon them, such as those that are imposed when goods are subject to a special customs procedure. In such cases, a person who has provided false information or who has breached the obligation can be liable for import duty. The clause also makes it clear that where the liability falls to two or more persons, the clause provides that they are jointly and severally liable for the import duty. It is essential to establish who is liable to pay import duty in all circumstances in which such liability arises. That includes making those who provide false information in connection with declarations liable for import duty.
Clause 7 contains no powers, but introduces the clauses in the Bill that will be used to set the amount of import duty applicable. The customs tariff will apply in all cases, but may be amended or adjusted to change the standard rate of duty in certain circumstances. The clauses referred to in this clause ensure that. The customs tariff will set out the rate of duty applicable to imports of goods into the United Kingdom. The tariff is made up of import duty rates for product categories. The standard customs tariff that the UK currently applies as a member of the EU is made up of more than 17,000 tariff lines.
The customs tariff established under clause 8 will contain the duty rates that apply to all imports from every country unless varied by another clause. The following clauses in the Bill enable the variation of the standard rate of import duty. For example, the UK will be able to reduce import duty when goods are imported under a preferential trade agreement, where preferential rates are granted unilaterally to developing countries. Parliament will also be able to reduce duty rates for applying a tariff suspension or relief, such as for items imported for educational, scientific or cultural purposes.
There are also circumstances where we may apply higher duties. For example, additional import duties can be applied when imports are causing injury to UK industry, as long as such additional duties are applied in line with our obligations as a member of the World Trade Organisation.
Clause 7 introduces the provisions under which we will establish our own tariff regime on leaving the EU. I suggest that clauses 6 and 7 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
The customs tariff
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 8, page 5, line 27, after “other”, insert “relevant”.
This amendment requires the Government to classify goods in regulations giving effect to the customs tariff only in relation to relevant factors.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 105, in clause 8, page 5, line 38, after first “the”, insert “number”.
This amendment clarifies that goods may be defined for the purposes of the import tariff simply by reference to their number.
Amendment 118, in clause 39, page 27, line 5, after second “to”, insert “number”.
This amendment clarifies that goods may be defined for the purposes of the export tariff simply by reference to their number.
Kirsty Blackman
I mentioned during Second Reading that the Law Society of Scotland had produced a paper on the Bill, and I offered to provide the Minister with a copy. If he does not yet have one, I am still happy to do that. The paper explains more fully the rationale behind these three amendments.
The amendments are not necessarily about changing the tack of the Bill; they are about making better law and ensuring that the law is clearer. I will quote a short extract from the paper submitted by the Law Society of Scotland. It states that,
“the power under clause 8(1)(a) to classify goods ‘according to their nature, origin or any other factor’ is a very broad one. At the very least, this should be limited to ‘any other relevant factor’ but it would be preferable to limit the scope of this provision by giving an indication of the types of factor which might be appropriate in this context.”
So, in our amendment, we have taken up the “very least” option suggested by the Law Society of Scotland. It seems a bit extreme for the Minister to be able to make changes or decisions on “any” factors, some of which may not be relevant. Adding the word “relevant” would ensure that, under the clause, the Minister was stuck to making changes or decisions in relation to relevant factors. It is simply a small technical change that would tighten up the way the law is written.
Similarly, amendments 105 and 118 are very small technical changes that the Law Society of Scotland suggests would be preferable or useful additions to the clause. It suggests that clause 8(3)(b) say, “the number, weight or volume of the goods or any other measure of their quantity or size.” Again, the aim is just to tighten up the language and ensure that the laws that we are starting off with in this wonderful Brexit Britain are as good and clear as possible and can be interpreted, if they need to be—by a court, for example—in the best possible way. As I said, they are very small technical changes, and I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider them.
Mel Stride
Clause 8 requires the Treasury to establish and maintain a customs tariff. The rates of duties set under this clause will apply to goods from every country, unless varied by another clause. It enables the implementation of a range of tariff options, so that the UK can respond to changes in the global trading environment, both now and in the future.
The UK currently applies duty to imports to the UK under the Union customs code. The standard duty rates of the UK, as a member of the EU, are contained in the common external tariff. When we leave the EU, this Bill will require the Treasury to establish and maintain a customs tariff that will, among other things, specify the rate of import duty applicable to goods. The UK is working with the WTO to establish the UK’s bound tariff schedule. That schedule sets the maximum rate of import duty that a country may apply to imports. The UK can then choose what rate to apply, provided it is at or below the bound rate. Import duty rates specified under this clause must be consistent with those international obligations.
Clause 8 sets out what must be contained in the customs—
The Chair
Order. May I remind the Minister that there will be an opportunity for a general debate on clause 8, but not necessarily at this point? He should be responding specifically to the amendment.
Mel Stride
I am sorry, Ms Buck. I assumed that we were also debating that clause 8 stand part. My apologies. I will turn specifically to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. Although she may see them as clarifying matters, the Government’s view is that they are additional and unnecessary amendments to areas where no further clarification is required.
Kirsty Blackman
Just to be clear, it is not just me who sees them as necessary in terms of clarification; it is the Law Society of Scotland, which, I assume, knows quite a lot about the law, and therefore feels that these are appropriate changes that would be helpful in terms of the actual law.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I fully appreciate that she is taking up recommendations made by the Law Society of Scotland, but let me comment on the two fundamental points she has raised.
First, relating to the relevance—that relevant considerations should be taken into account. The relevance of having the word “relevant” in there, prompts the question whether anybody would ever take decisions based on things that were entirely irrelevant, or at least not relevant. If one went down the road suggested by the hon. Lady, the word “relevant” would probably be inserted in multiple places throughout all the legislation that we ever pass in this House. It is understood that rational Ministers and others would take relevant decisions, rather than irrelevant decisions.
Secondly, before I go too far down this tongue-twisting route—
Mel Stride
Will the hon. Lady indulge me for a second? Parliament—through secondary legislation and in many cases in this Bill—will have the opportunity to test whether any of these measures are being taken on the basis not only of relevant considerations, but of all sorts of other considerations that will be taken into account as to whether these measures that come forward should proceed.
As to the specific point about the amendment relating to the insertion of the numbers, that clause already refers to reference or consideration being made of the quantity of the goods concerned. I think the meaning of the word “number” is, in that context, subsumed by the meaning of the word “quantity”. The Government have received the opinion that the clause already does that which the hon. Lady would like to see it do, namely ensure that the number of goods is also relevant to the function of that particular clause in the legislation.
Anneliese Dodds
It is just a brief—the Minister may feel, facetious—comment, but in the Help-to-Save regulations that we recently discussed there is reference to sufficient proof of death from a GP being required. The Government apparently felt that the word “sufficient” was necessary in that context, but most people would think it was not necessary if there is proof of death. Therefore, if an expert body such as the Law Society of Scotland feels that a word such as “relevant” is required, perhaps I would take its word for it.
Mel Stride
I am not a legal expert. I obviously appreciate that different words have different meanings in different legal contexts, but from the Government’s point of view, we are satisfied that there is not a requirement to have the word “relevant” inserted. That would be superfluous—to throw in another term—as would be the insertion of the word “number”, for reasons I have given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, because it would not affect the functioning or meaning of that clause.
Kirsty Blackman
I am not going to press the Minister on the word “number”, but on the word “relevant”, I think the Minister dug a hole when he was talking about “rational” Chancellors or Ministers in the Treasury. We are looking at ensuring that this regulation is future-proof, ensuring that if a Minister is not as reasonable as the one standing here, we can ensure that they are held to making relevant regulation. The clause states:
“The Treasury must make regulations establishing, and maintaining in force, a system which…classifies goods according to their nature, origin or any other factor”.
The Government are asking for this House to give them a significant level of delegated authority. They are asking for us to trust the Government, or any future Government that come after, in relation to making these regulations. In this case they are asking us to trust the Treasury. I think the Government can understand why there may be a lack of trust at the moment, given that we have been promised things that have not been followed through on. It would not be too much to ask to insert the word “relevant” into that clause, so that in future, if we do not have as rational a Minister as this one, we can ensure that they have to make the regulations on the classification of goods on relevant factors, rather than on ones that may be irrelevant.
Mel Stride
I reiterate that the Government are not in the business of taking irrelevant factors into account when they make decisions. I give that assurance equally in respect of the Opposition and other parties when they are or have been in government.
The hon. Lady also raises the issue of delegated legislation. At the introduction of the tariff, delegated legislation will be in the form of an affirmative statutory instrument that will be fully considered by a Committee, passed or otherwise by it and agreed to or otherwise by the House. A higher level of delegated legislative scrutiny will also apply to every occasion on which a duty is increased, as opposed to decreased. There is provision in the Bill for a higher level of scrutiny for the introduction of the tariff and for elements of its operation thereafter.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister. I would like to press amendment 104, but not the other two in the group.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 6, line 1, at end insert—
“(aa) the interests of manufacturers in the United Kingdom,”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the interests of manufacturers in considering the rate of import duty.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 78, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, at end insert “and
(e) the impacts on sustainable development.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the impacts on sustainable development in considering the rate of import duty.
Amendment 106, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, at end insert “and—
(e) the public interest.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the public interest in considering the rate of customs tariff in its standard form.
Jonathan Reynolds
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the interests of manufacturers in considering the rate of import duty. UK manufacturing makes a vital contribution to the British economy each year. According to House of Commons Library research published in 2017, it accounted for 8% of jobs in the UK, which is 2.7 million; £177 billion of economic output, which is 10% of the UK’s total; and 57% of UK imports, to the value of £243 billion. On a personal note, I remain one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on manufacturing. In my constituency, those figures are roughly double the national average.
Manufacturing industry is significantly exposed to Brexit in a number of ways, the first of which is the export relationship. The UK exported goods worth £134 billion to the EU in 2015. In other ways, manufacturing industry is more reliant on imports, as many goods are imported to be used in the manufacturing supply chain. It is well known that the UK has a negative balance of trade at present; in 2016, that deficit was £98.7 billion.
Secondly, keeping the supply chain flowing freely is essential and time-critical. For example, while giving evidence to the International Trade Committee in February 2017, Nissan said that its Sunderland plant—a place very close to my heart because that is where I grew up—holds only half a day’s stock and uses 5 million parts a day, 60% of which are imported. As such, Nissan has said that any disruption to its supply chains would be “a disaster”.
Thirdly, supply chain imports are also heavily exposed to movements in the price of sterling, which has become considerably more volatile since the referendum result, with the pound losing 15% of its value against the euro between June and October 2016. Sterling’s weakness against the euro continues, with the pound still 14% below its pre-referendum levels.
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree. Every member of the Committee will recognise my hon. Friend’s constituency interest and expertise in this area. I felt that the evidence that UK Steel gave us earlier in the week was particularly helpful in being prescriptive as to where it believes the Bill falls short. As an industry, it is especially susceptible to gaps in trade remedy legislation given the historic damage that dumping has done to the sector.
Jonathan Reynolds
That is absolutely the case. Gareth Stace from UK Steel told us last Tuesday:
“The Government can promise anything they like, but more than a third of all tariffs in place affect the steel sector and it hits us hard, therefore, if this system, when it comes out, is not appropriate for what it is trying to do.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 68-69, Q105.]
That will clearly result in huge problems for the sector.
UK Steel’s main reservation with the Bill is the lack of detail, as my hon. Friend has said, which is present on a number of fronts where it believes the industry needs more certainty. Secondary legislation is being relied upon to provide a huge amount of the practical information we need. One of UK Steel’s specific concerns is around investigations relating to the dumping of foreign subsidies that can cause injury to UK industry. As related by Dr Cohen in her testimony, to which I referred earlier, there is no information on how dumping margins are to be calculated.
UK Steel goes further and sets out a list of other considerations that should be taken into account, including how to assess whether a UK industry has been injured; how to determine if such injury has been caused by the dumped or subsidised imports; what principles may be used in defining the products covered by an investigation; how subsidies can be defined; what evidence an industry needs to produce to trigger an investigation; how to conduct an investigation, including any time limits; and how to require guarantees to cover possible future duties when provisional measures are required. It is a long list and I could go on, but in the interests of the Committee’s time I will not. However, it serves to illustrate the point that there are a number of multi-layered and complex considerations to take into account.
I also want to underline that this is not a matter of protectionism. As Gareth Stace also made clear in Tuesday’s evidence session:
“The steel sector thrives on free, liberalised trade. A third of all steel produced in the world is traded across borders.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 67, Q104.]
At present there are zero tariffs between developed nations for steel trade. It was his belief that, without trade remedies, there will be an increase in protectionism, as they are essential to allowing free trade to take place. I thoroughly endorse that message.
The upshot of such deputations is that manufacturers are not asking for special measures from the outset, but pointing out that we are on the cusp of a complex world post-Brexit and they need more detail. It has been the Government’s choice not to include such detail in the Bill and it is too late to make that change now. It is clear, however, that the lack of certainty that results has not been optimal for our manufacturing sector and has inhibited its ability to make plans and prepare for the future.
As UK Steel has highlighted, the legislation lays out the bare minimum needed, delegating all detail to secondary legislation. It is true that we are on a tight timeline for negotiations, but there is a wealth of global legislation that could have been drawn upon to help inform the Bill, such as the US Tariff Act of 1930, the Canadian Special Import Measures Act, the EU Regulations 2016/1036—
The Chair
Order. The Member is straying slightly outside the remit of the amendment and needs to bring it back.
Jonathan Reynolds
Well, Ms Buck, I am just pointing out that it was possible to put in detail. If that is not in the Bill, we have to have amendments that allow for the detail to be included.
Jonathan Reynolds
The Opposition are asking for the Government to offer reassurance to manufacturers by enshrining consultation into subsequent procedures. Clearly there are a great many things to consider, which may be made clear only by close consultation with the industries themselves. We are concerned that there is potential for an abuse of power by subjugating the process to secondary legislation, which is subject to considerably less parliamentary scrutiny. For the final time, I refer to UK Steel’s words:
“UK industry needs to be able to ascertain what its rights in domestic courts will be to challenge the decisions of the Trade Remedies Authority and the Secretary of State”—
The Chair
Order. I repeat that talking about the secondary legislation matter is not within the scope of the amendment. Please come back to the scope of the amendment.
Jonathan Reynolds
Okay. I will take your advice on that, Ms Buck.
Over the course of the Committee’s remaining days, given the amendments we are due to consider, I believe there will be a fuller debate about the issues I have mentioned. However, as things stand, we appear to be shackled to this process and it is therefore vital to enshrine a right of consultation for manufacturers to guarantee the future of UK industry and the 2.7 million jobs bound up within it. No one wants to see a Brexit underpinned by a race to the bottom, leaving the UK susceptible to a repeat of the events that punished Tata Steel in 2016. We cannot risk these being repeated in the rest of the UK manufacturing sector. Parliament must work with and listen to those on the front line, consider their input and let them guide us on what we need to succeed as a global economy in a post-Brexit world, drawing on existing best practice from around the world.
I call on the Committee to support the Opposition’s amendment, to enshrine the right to consultation, to protect British jobs and British manufacturing, and to guarantee that our post-Brexit economy does not leave British industry out in the cold.
Kirsty Blackman
This aspect of the clause is about
“considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods”,
and we have tabled amendments. The Government have chosen not to include in this provision a reference to “any other factor” or even the preferable “any other relevant factor”, but have laid down a number of factors that they are believe are relevant in this case. Both the Scottish National party and the official Opposition, with amendments 1, 78 and 106, are trying to increase the number of factors that will be considered when the rate of import duty that ought to apply is being considered. The clause already includes
“the interests of consumers…the desirability of maintaining and promoting…external trade…the desirability of maintaining and promoting productivity…and…the extent to which the goods concerned are subject to competition.”
On amendment 1, I associate myself with many of the shadow Minister’s remarks about the importance of manufacturing. It has been concerning that the Government have not taken into account the interests of manufacturing in many of the actions that they have taken. Therefore, it would be useful for the House to have the comfort that the Government would have to consider the importance of manufacturing when they were making these decisions.
The Scottish Government are in a much better place in that, in relation to steel and Tata Steel specifically, we have saved the Lanarkshire plants, and we have worked with BiFab. If the UK Government had previously taken actions like that, we would be in the much better position of feeling that they would be likely to protect the interests of manufacturing. We are therefore happy to associate ourselves with the Labour amendment.
Amendment 78 has been suggested by Traidcraft. I will talk about exactly why Traidcraft says that it is important. The UK has signed up to the sustainable development goals. They are incredibly important for the future of the world—for our children and our children’s children—in ensuring that there is sustainable development. Traidcraft says:
“It is therefore vital that consideration of sustainable development is contained in primary legislation to avoid the potential for the UK to inadvertently contravene its global commitments…If sustainable development were added to this list it would ensure the Government were able to fulfil its global commitments.”
That is a strong message from Traidcraft about this aspect of the clause. Because, as I said, the Minister has not included in it “any other relevant factor”, we want to be clear that the Government are protecting the interests of manufacturers, but also the interests of the future of the planet.
Amendment 106 is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. Again, the factors that the Minister is required to consider when setting the rate of import duty are not wide enough. We suggest including a reference to the public interest generally, so that the Minister and the Treasury, in making these decisions, would be required to look at whether the public interest generally would be served by the rate of import duty that they were imposing.
All three proposals are relevant considerations for the long-term future of manufacturing which, given the not-very-good productivity in the UK, is hugely necessary and something that we need to protect. I do not know how anybody could argue with looking at sustainable development, given that the future of our planet is at stake. On the point about the public interest in general, we are all here to represent our constituents—we are here to ensure that their views are heard in this place—so it is completely reasonable that the Minister and the Treasury, in making any rules under this aspect of the clause, would consider the public interest generally, as well as the other four factors already mentioned.
Nic Dakin
In opening the debate, the Minister helpfully said that the intention was to introduce things in a way that did not disrupt things that were currently going on. The advantage of amendment 1 is that it would help to bring that about by adding in “the interests of manufacturers” as part of the test. It would give confidence to manufacturing areas.
I speak as somebody who represents a steel town. The confidence of manufacturers and the people who work there, who are also significant consumers in the local economy, is important because those manufacturing sectors desperately need investment in capital and in new ways of working to remain competitive in a competitive world.
The Minister and the Government would do well to consider that, because it would assist in delivering continuity—the outcome that the Minister set out at the beginning—and the confidence necessary for the investment we need. We cannot delay investment, although that might happen, because that would mean delayed opportunity. One of the Government’s overriding responsibilities is to put confidence into the system so that the risks of leaving the European Union are diminished and the opportunities are enhanced.
Anneliese Dodds
I shall speak to amendment 78, which has already been referred to. To be clear, we already have a list in the Bill of different considerations that ought to apply when calculating the rate of import duty for goods in a standard case, which includes,
“the interests of consumers…maintaining and promoting the external trade…maintaining and promoting productivity…the extent to which the goods concerned are subject to competition.”
That is why we suggest that we should have a holistic look at other matters that should be considered.
That is particularly important when it comes to the calculation of import duties with a view to environmental sustainability. When the current chief co-ordinator at the World Trade Organisation, Christiane Kraus, was at the World Bank, she spelled out reasons why environmental considerations might be relevant to the setting of trade parameters, in the absence of other mechanisms for promoting global environmental common goods. We may well be entering a period where it is very difficult to get international agreements on environmental matters, not least because of the direction of the American Administration, so it seems sensible to retain the possibility of so-called eco-tariffs in the Bill.
In addition, even inside the EU’s customs regime, there is evidence of illegal waste trading. Revelations from the Environmental Investigations Agency concerning the toxic trade in cathode ray tubes from the UK to Nigeria and Ghana make for very disturbing reading.
It is absolutely appropriate that we refer to sustainable development in relation to import duties, and to refer to it in this clause would rectify the fact that there is no mention in the rest of the Bill—I was very surprised by this—of the many factors relating to sustainable development that are otherwise covered by the EU customs regime. There is no mention of the environment, aside from the competitive environment; of forestry, aside from in relation to trading stamp schemes; or of chemicals, waste or wildlife. That is a significant departure from the EU customs regime.
The EU’s rules around authorised economic operators indicate that, for a company to become a member of that scheme, it needs to show that it does not have a record of serious infringements, including infringements against environmental legislation. EU legislation is clear that that status can be suspended if there is a threat to public safety, the protection of public health or the environment.
Many other areas in the customs regime that reference or have cross-connections with accompanying EU legislation are not picked up in the Bill. EU forest law enforcement, governance and trade—FLEGT—covers a licensing scheme for timber. That is relevant to import duty costs, because the importer is liable for the cost of the verification of any licences and of the translation of any paperwork related to its enforcement. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is strictly controlled through EU regulation. Trans-boundary shipments of waste must comply with the 2006 EU waste shipment regulation.
The CITES treaty applies to wildlife, so we would still be covered by that when we leave the EU, but the EU goes further—that is incorporated in the overall customs regime. For example, there are regulations about documentation and labelling and a longer list of species upon which import controls are applied for the EU compared with under CITES. Finally, when it comes to measures about trade in environmentally-damaging chemicals, we have EU-level quotas on ozone-depleting substances and carbon-producing F-gases, and a notification procedure for other potentially dangerous chemicals.
I accept that in all those areas we could be asking for lots of different amendments to try to rectify some of these problems—I am sure Members will try—but having that environmental sustainability criterion for assessing import duties in the Bill, and placing it near the start, will raise its profile, which the Government sadly seem not to have considered at all when putting the Bill together. That is worrying given the prominence of these matters within the EU’s existing customs regime.
Peter Dowd
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mrs Buck. I hope that, as in the sessions on the Finance Bill, we will have a major climbdown—the Minister and other members of the Committee will note that from that Bill.
The SNP amendment 106 would require the Government to have regard to the public interest in considering the rate of customs tariffs on our exit. It would add a public interest test to the four existing conditions that the Bill requires the Treasury to have regard to when deciding to apply customs tariffs to goods entering the United Kingdom. Those existing conditions in the Bill are the interests of consumers, the desirability of promoting external trade, the desirability of promoting productivity in the UK and the extent to which goods are subject to competition.
Members will note that, throughout the passage of the Bill, we have been seeking to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. We will continue to do so. In one of the evidence sessions, we heard from one witness, Kathleen Walker Shaw, the European officer of the GMB union, who said that she spent many evenings drafting her union’s response to the trade White Paper only to find eight hours later that the Bills had been published. I think that it is fair to say that that was not a particularly isolated view in the session.
The Opposition have concerns about the specifics of the SNP amendment, which means we take a slightly different approach. We believe that, in key sections of the Bill, the public interest is being used as a mechanism to widen the powers of the Secretary of State. That is perhaps most pronounced in schedule 4, which empowers the Secretary of State to reject a recommendation of the Trade Remedies Authority based upon a belief that it is not in the public interest. I respect people’s beliefs, but in this forum they have to be based on evidence, and I am not sure that we will get much of that. We have tabled a number of amendments of our own, and I want to dwell on them.
It is incumbent on me to point out that public interest is not defined in the Bill. That leaves a good deal of room for manoeuvre for the Secretary of State to determine the public interest, without appropriate parameters about precisely what it means. Precision is not one of the endearing features of the Bill. We are happy for the Government to have powers to take the public interest into account in certain circumstances, but only on the basis that it is concretely defined in primary legislation. That is yet another lacuna in the Bill, and a stubborn point that will be addressed time and again in these proceedings.
The Minister used the example of national security in the evidence session on Tuesday. That does seem a useful definition of public interest, and we believe that national security should provide an explicit limit to the definition of public interest in the Bill. We know, after all, that the Secretary of State has some novel ideas about what the public interest might be. They are views that ostensibly focus on the needs of the consumer over the producer. However, it has to be said that that is a one-dimensional approach taken by the Government, which was laid bare in the witness session. In response to the Financial Secretary’s question about consumers potentially being disadvantaged compared to producers, Ms Crawford responded:
“Consumers are also workers who are employed in some of these industries, and they will not benefit from having unfair trade practice disadvantage them and the quality of their goods. That is something we must bear in mind.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 42, Q53.]
That is a more sophisticated definitional approach than the Government’s.
Although we support the efforts of the Scottish National party to introduce checks and balances, we have concerns at this stage. In that regard, we cannot support the amendment. I hope the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will take our statement in good faith.
Mel Stride
We have had a wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments, much of which covers matters that we will come to later in the Bill. I will focus my remarks on the details of the amendments and the clause.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe rightly pointed out that I said earlier that the Government’s intention was to ensure that we had a minimum of change in the regime, for the obvious reason of providing familiarity and certainty to businesses. That is an important point and it is why clause 8(5) takes precedent from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is very much grounded in where we currently are, as opposed to venturing out to pastures new, some of which would be unfortunate or inappropriate, or so the Opposition would have us believe.
The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned authorised economic operators, which we will come to in clause 22, to make the general point that a number of things do not appear in the Bill, such as our habitats and various other things in existing EU legislation. On AEOs, the Bill introduces powers in clause 22 that will allow us to address exactly those elements when HMRC and the Treasury come to lay regulations as to, for example, what qualifications there might be to become registered as a certified AEO. Those kinds of issues can be picked up at that time and scrutinised further by the House.
The meat of clause 8 is in subsection (5), which states:
“In considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods in a standard case, the Treasury must have regard to…(a) the interests of consumers in the United Kingdom”
and
“(b) the desirability of maintaining and promoting the external trade of the United Kingdom”.
It is hard to see how that would not have to take into account the manufacturing element and the health of the manufacturing sector. Subsection (5)(c) states that the Treasury must have regard to
“the desirability of maintaining and promoting productivity in the United Kingdom,”
It is very difficult to see how the manufacturing sector, which represents around 10% of the UK economy, could be entirely ignored or in any sense neglected. Subsection (5)(d) states that the Treasury must have regard to
“the extent to which the goods concerned are subject to competition.”
I suggest that manufacturing would be core to any decisions on the setting of duties made in that context.
Subsection (6) states:
“In considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods in a standard case, the Treasury must also have regard to any recommendation about the rate made to them by the Secretary of State.”
As the Committee will know, the term “Secretary of State” refers to any Secretary of State in any Department, so on concerns relating to sustainable development, the relevant Department—
Kirsty Blackman
Actually, subsection (7) goes on to say that the Secretary of State
“must have regard to the matters set out in subsection (5)(a) to (d)”,
and not to other factors such as sustainable development.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady has pre-empted my next point. Although subsection (7) does say that, it does not say that the Secretary of State cannot have regard to any other matter—it does not exclude. It would be strange if a Secretary of State was told that they had to have regard to those four aspects when considering an issue and they took that to mean that they could not consider any other aspect. I draw the Committee’s attention to that aspect of the Bill.
On the specific case of sustainable development, we will debate and scrutinise the provisions in the Bill that accommodate setting up our unilateral trade preferences, which are extremely important in the context of sustainable development. On those grounds, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
Kirsty Blackman
Specifically on what the Minister has said, it is clear from various evidence we have received that the Government have not chosen simply to replicate things such as the Union customs code. In some places they have chosen to replicate it, but in others they have chosen not to. The concern is that the Government’s judgment has not been great in choosing which parts to replicate and which parts not to replicate. The measure has clearly been drafted in a hurry. From the Minister’s argument in relation to what the Secretary of State would have regard to, it is clear that this section of the legislation has not been particularly well thought through.
Opposition Members are not asking for unreasonable things. Having regard to sustainable development is completely reasonable. If the Minister is clear that that will be looked at anyway, or if the Secretary of State decides to get involved in any decision, it does not cost anything to add that into the Bill. If the Minister is clear that the Government will consider the interests of manufacturers because they are integral, it does not cost anything to add that into the Bill. It would be useful and helpful to businesses and would be a nice sign of confidence in businesses. It would be great for the Government to not just talk about increasing productivity, but to say to manufacturers, “We will support you and ensure that your interests are protected.” If the Minister is clear that such things are going to happen anyway, it would not cost the Government anything and they would lose nothing, but it would ensure that people feel more positively about the Bill.
Mel Stride
I will be brief because the Committee is anxious to make progress and move on to some important clauses. I will not repeat the earlier comments that I made other than the overarching comment, which is that the provisions in the Bill as drawn are very broad and will pick up on the concerns that the hon. Lady has raised.
Jonathan Reynolds
I appreciate the Minister’s response and his words of reassurance, but if he were being fair-minded he would acknowledge that there is still significant uncertainty and concern in UK industry, particularly in the manufacturing sector. As the evidence session showed the other day, there are more known unknowns than anything else in this area, and amendments that seek to mitigate that and provide more reassurance are reasonable and prudent, so we would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jonathan Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 8, page 6, line 9, at end insert—
“(b) by a relevant select committee of the House of Commons, or
(c) contained in a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to recommendations of any relevant select committee of the House of Commons or contained in a resolution of the House of Commons in considering the rate of import duty.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 11, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
“(b) by a relevant select committee of the House of Commons, or
(c) contained in a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to recommendations of any relevant select committee of the House of Commons or contained in a resolution of the House of Commons in considering the rate of import duty.
Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 8, line 40, at end insert—
“(b) by a relevant select committee of the House of Commons, or
(c) contained in a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to recommendations of any relevant select committee of the House of Commons or contained in a resolution of the House of Commons in considering whether to exercise the power to set lower rates of import duty.
Jonathan Reynolds
I will endeavour to take a little less time on amendment 2, Ms Buck. My enthusiasm and enjoyment of a Bill Committee perhaps gets the better of me at times.
The amendment would require the Treasury to have regard to the recommendations of any relevant Select Committee or those contained in a resolution of the House of Commons in considering the rate of import duty. This goes to the heart of how the Bill is constructed and how we will seek to scrutinise it. For reasons we have already covered, the Bill is very much an outline framework Bill, the details of which must be added at a later date. That relates to the way in which the negotiations have progressed. We must think about how to ensure that there is no democratic deficit in how the detail of the Bill is filled in, and that the core objective of Brexit—greater democratic control for the House of Commons—is achieved.
The Opposition recognise the need for the Government to make the necessary preparations to create the UK’s customs and tariff regimes post-Brexit, but we do not accept that that means allowing the Government to concentrate all those powers in the Executive. It is the Opposition’s view that, in this instance, the Conservative interpretation of taking back control has simply meant moving it from Brussels to Whitehall. That is true not just of this Bill but of many parts of the Brexit legislation. In our view, tariffs should undergo the same parliamentary process as taxation, with similar levels of parliamentary scrutiny.
In the evidence sessions on Tuesday, we heard about the sheer diversity of areas that could be affected and that will need input into the detail of the Bill. We believe that Select Committees could play a crucial parliamentary role in providing some of that detail. If the Select Committees were allowed to engage with a wide range of stakeholders to contribute to the Government’s evidence base, we believe that it would widen the debate. It would also provide for a critical role in holding the Government to account. Select Committees’ ability to compel witnesses to appear to give evidence would allow them to interrogate Ministers about the consequences of some of the details of the secondary legislation and process as it unfolds, which could be invaluable. It could also help build political consensus by identifying common ground between different groups of politicians, which is especially important given how divisive Brexit has been thus far.
Lastly, Select Committees could engage with the media and public, which would be a key contribution to the transparency of the process, accountability and scrutiny. Where there is potential in the Bill for trade decisions to be made seemingly unilaterally by the Secretary of State, having public and transparent debates through parliamentary Select Committees could be critical. I therefore urge the Committee to vote in favour of the amendment, which would be a significant step towards ensuring that we make every effort to handle this once-in-a-generation event with the parliamentary scrutiny, accountability and checks and balances that it demands.
Kirsty Blackman
I have previously complained about the composition of Public Bill Committees, given the UK Government’s gerrymandering so that they can have a majority in Bill Committees despite not having a majority in the House. The change would mean that scrutiny would be done effectively, and not just by Committees with a majority of Government representatives who will win every vote by 10 to nine. The amendment is incredibly important and would ensure effective and appropriate scrutiny, and make for better legislation.
Mel Stride
Amendment 2 would require the Treasury to consider recommendations made by a relevant Select Committee or a resolution of the House of Commons when considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply in the standard case.
The Treasury will listen closely to recommendations from a range of interested parties, including relevant Select Committees and, of course, Members of the House. In addition, Select Committees already have the power to question Ministers on policy within their departmental remit, and the Treasury will answer any questions from relevant Select Committees. Therefore, the Government believe that it is not necessary to include that in the Bill.
Amendment 3 would place the same obligation on the Treasury when considering what provisions to include in regulations related to quotas, such as determining the rate of import duty applicable to goods that are subject to quotas, and amendment 4 would introduce that requirement when making regulations concerning tariff suspensions. For the same reasons that I set out in relation to amendment 2, the Government do not believe that it is necessary to include such provisions in the Bill.
I have one final point in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about scrutiny and needing provisions in the Bill. This Bill will, of course, have Report stage, which will be an opportunity for scrutiny by a far wider group than a Committee on which the Government might typically have a majority of one. Every Member of the House will have an opportunity to participate in that debate and consideration of further amendments.
Peter Dowd
The amendments seek to ensure that the Treasury must have regard to any Select Committee recommendations or House of Commons resolutions in two circumstances: first, when setting the rate of import duty on a specified good; and secondly, when lowering the rate of import duty on specific goods. Through the amendments, we seek to improve the mechanisms of accountability and ensure that any decision taken by the Treasury on duties and tariffs is taken on the basis of a democratic approach to the management of our economy, with a full and proper place for Parliament and its constituent parts.
We want the UK to have a full and functioning customs system in place when we leave the European Union. The powers transferred in the Bill give the Chancellor, the Secretary of State or others the ability to restructure the entire economy at a few strokes of a pen, without any consultation with those affected by changes to our customs regime. That is deeply concerning for anybody.
Since the Government failed to win a majority at the recent general election, we have seen numerous attempts to centralise power within ministerial portfolios, reducing the role of Parliament and the scrutiny of Government decisions, as has been alluded to on a number of occasions today. The Bill is yet another example of that trend. As the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made clear, the current trend is towards a “massive transfer of power” to the Executive and away from Parliament. Every parliamentarian in this room should be deeply concerned about that because, at the end of the day, we get £75,000 a year to come here and scrutinise the Government and we are not being allowed to. We are therefore seeking to introduce the checks and balances necessary to ensure that a future customs framework and its operation continue to have proper democratic scrutiny and oversight. Stakeholders should be brought into the process.
The amendments would introduce an advisory capacity for Select Committees or the House in the process of determining import duties. That would broaden the number of those who have a democratic role in supporting and informing decision-making. That is what we are here for. Currently, as the Lords Committee made clear, the Bill provides 150 separate powers to make tax law. We are merely suggesting that widening the number of parliamentarians who can influence those decisions is a matter of building a genuinely rigorous democratic process.
Crucially, as hon. Members are aware, Select Committees are made up of Members from across the House. That cross-party approach can only support a proper decision-making process on the important issue of customs tariffs. We hope therefore that Members will consider the benefits of including the expertise of a Committee or the House in general within the vital process of examining evidence and providing independent advice— the Government may not wish to hear that advice, but it should nevertheless be given to them. Ultimately, that can only help to support the work of the Treasury in achieving the best outcome, regardless of party concerned.
It is reasonable in distillation to assert that Mr Blackwell from the Hansard Society said that there is a problem that
“the balance between Parliament and the Executive...has always been on the side of the Executive”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 51, Q71.]
This is a chance to rebalance that. Given the extent of delegation to Ministers set up in this Bill and other Brexit Bills, the role of Parliament is being downgraded. The Government know that; Members in this room know that; consumers know that; and producers know that and the public know that. The Government should think on that. Frankly, they should come clean, have the courage of their convictions, acknowledge it publicly and, in so doing, stop hiding behind what for many people are the vagaries of procedure—negative, affirmative and so on. We ask the Committee to support our amendments today in the interests of democratic scrutiny.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 30th January 2018
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 January 2018 - (30 Jan 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 13, page 9, line 4, leave out “public notice” and insert “regulations”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 138 and 139, makes the power to give effect to an accepted recommendation of the TRA exercisable by regulations rather than public notice.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 138, in clause 13, page 9, line 8, leave out “public notice” and insert “regulations”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 137.
Amendment 139, in clause 13, page 9, line 17, leave out “public notice” and insert “regulations”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 137.
Jonathan Reynolds
Good morning, Ms Buck. It is a pleasure to begin the second week of our Committee’s consideration of the Bill.
The amendments, like many that the Opposition have tabled, concern the democratic deficit in the Bill. As we have covered in numerous evidence sessions and in our discussions so far, the Bill is far too reliant on secondary legislation. The scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committees—especially those that consider instruments laid according to the negative procedure, as the majority will be—is insufficient for taxation matters of such potential magnitude. Parliament will have the option to raise objections to the instruments, but they will not be debated on the Floor of the House as a matter of course.
The amendments are important because the Bill introduces an even more troubling concept: that of making law by public notice. After Second Reading earlier this month, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee published a report that probed the most worrying aspects in detail. The report emphasises that the concept of public notice, on which the Bill is heavily reliant, is effectively a modern form of rule by proclamation that removes the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. It states:
“For Ministers and others to make law by ‘public notice’, without any recourse to Parliament, is highly unusual and such provisions should attract strict surveillance by Parliament.”
It also notes that
“the Treasury’s Delegated Powers Memorandum says that such notices will only make provision that is purely technical or administrative in nature. Nonetheless, clause 32(9) of the Bill allows anything that can be done under public notice to be done by regulations, implicitly acknowledging the importance of things done by public notice.”
It identifies the Bill as a throwback to the Statute of Proclamations 1539, which
“gave proclamations the force of statute law…it was repealed in 1547 after the death of Henry VIII”.
We should all be grateful for the institutional memory of the House of Lords.
Equally problematic are the mechanics by which public notice takes place. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee emphasises, under clause 37(5) the only qualification for public notice is that the person who issues it has selected a channel that they consider appropriate, but a definition of “appropriate” is absent from the Bill. Public notice could therefore mean anything from a full-page advert in the Financial Times to a small ad in a trade journal or perhaps even a tweet. Clause 24 permits Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to establish a system for making rulings to determine the customs code and the place of origin of particular goods, both of which have an impact on the duty. Other rulings could affect the rights and liabilities of an individual.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommends
“the creation of a generally applicable system for making determinations which are capable of affecting an individual’s legal position should ordinarily be dealt with by legislation, subject to scrutiny by Parliament, rather than by public notice without any such scrutiny”—
checks and balances. The Opposition agree wholeheartedly —hence our amendments.
The Government’s manoeuvres are deeply concerning. We would be failing in our duty of scrutiny if we did not step in to raise our anxieties about how powers of proclamation may be used. We are well aware of the volume of new legislation that needs to be produced to create and implement a new customs code, and of the temptation to create or take advantage of constitutional shortcuts to facilitate the process. However, protecting the rights of the individual must come first. Where matters of taxation are concerned, the parliamentary process is usually more rigorous with respect to the reasons for setting the duty.
As I have already said, the secondary legislation process is not optimal, and we believe that the balance between primary and secondary legislation in the Bill is unsound. However, using delegated legislation for these matters instead of creating regulations by public notice would surely be the least-worst option. It would allow for a bare minimum of parliamentary involvement and oversight of new tax and customs law. Even the negative procedure gives Parliament the option to reject a statutory instrument, although no formal debate takes place. Where possible, more significant matters should surely be considered via the affirmative procedure, so that at least there would be the basis for debate.
The Opposition believe that, without such debate, we will be at risk of setting a dangerous precedent that allows the ruling Executive to make regulation by public notice as it pleases, potentially even beyond the scope of the Bill. Therefore I call upon all members of the Committee to support the amendment, to ensure that we can continue to perform our vital role providing checks and balances in the structure of taxation and customs law in the UK.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you for the opportunity to speak and for chairing the meeting, Ms Buck. I would like to speak briefly around the amendments. One of my earliest questions about the Bill was: what is a public notice and how does one justify that it has been made sufficiently public? The Opposition raised that case clearly. On the definition of public notice and the fact that the person making the public notice has to make that judgment call, particularly in relation to clause 13, which concerns the dumping of goods, foreign subsidies and increases in imports, and given that the UK has not had provision to make regulations and rules, it seems sensible to say that a public notice is not the best way. Parliament should have some say. We have raised concerns previously that, although Brexit is apparently about taking back control, it appears that control is being taken back to the Executive rather than to Parliament as a whole. I will therefore support amendments 137 to 139 if they are pushed to a vote.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Buck, and to welcome back the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. This group of amendments would require trade remedies measures to be imposed and given legal effect by regulations. I appreciate the concerns in relation to the use of public notices, which were raised by both Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Scottish nationalist party representative. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out why this is an entirely appropriate procedure for imposing trade remedies measures.
If you were cynical, Ms Buck, you might think that, because the Opposition have decided to make parliamentary scrutiny the central theme of their critique of the Bill, they are leveraging that into every single argument at every single stage. I am not a cynic, and take the concerns at face value, as the genuine ones that I am sure they are.
The imperative is to act quickly once the Trade Remedies Authority has identified the need to tackle injury to UK industry. I would have hoped that Members on both sides of the Committee would recognise that the imperative is to act quickly when injury to UK producers has been identified, and to move as swiftly as possible to put that right. Measures will be calculated and recommended by a fully expert and independent body, following an extensive investigation that is governed by strict World Trade Organisation rules. Our priority has to be to ensure that those recommended measures are imposed quickly, to provide relief to industries suffering injury.
The additional proposed process would delay our ability to apply measures precisely at a time when UK industry is suffering injury, and when it has been independently established that that is so. It would run counter to the calls we have heard from industry for a swift process. The use of public notices to implement trade remedies measures is consistent with the approach taken in comparable WTO countries such as New Zealand and Australia, and is therefore in line with international good practice.
Therefore I say to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that, to suggest that this use of public notice is untoward and could lead to further government by proclamation, even outwith the Bill, is disproportionate. The reality is that this set of amendments, as with so many put forward by the Opposition, would in fact undermine the very principles that they say they are interested in: namely, to protect UK industry to ensure that we have a proportionate and speedy response to unfair dumping or use of subsidy and make sure that injury to British industry is put right. It is a shame that, collectively, the Opposition’s amendments suggest that their priorities are somewhere else.
Jonathan Reynolds
The Minister’s case is that this needs to be used for reasons of speed. Can he give us detailed information about how long it takes to prepare a statutory instrument to be brought before the House, given that that does not need parliamentary time in the Chamber—it cannot be that extensive? Exactly how much time will be saved by this proposed new form of parliamentary process?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for some time. I would have thought he would be familiar with the calendar of the parliamentary year, with long periods of recess when Parliament does not sit. Why on earth would Her Majesty’s Opposition, so often accused, doubtlessly unfairly, of being in hock to the producer interest and blind to wider society and the interests of the consumer and the ordinary citizen—though I decry that attitude—because of their links to the trade union movement, wish to put delays in place?
The hon. Gentleman knows full well the delays that can come with secondary legislation. To have that at the end of that extensive, independent and exhaustive expert assessment that has established injury, why on earth would the Labour party, or indeed the Scottish nationalist party, want to get in the way of swift, effective and proper defence of British jobs, British workers and British business?
Kirsty Blackman
I am pleased that the Government are now concerned with ensuring that such things are put in place incredibly quickly if there is injury to UK industry. In that case, will the Government bring forward amendments to speed up other parts of the process, given that they will now be taking longer than the EU’s similar processes?
Graham Stuart
I apologise for getting the name of the hon. Lady’s party wrong—it is the Scottish National party. We have put forward a proportionate and swift system, and hope that we would be able to deliver a speedier, more proportionate and balanced response than that of the EU. That is certainly our aim. I note again that amendments tabled by the hon. Lady’s party and Her Majesty’s Opposition suggest that their priority is entirely different.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful for the infusion of energy that the amendments have brought to the Committee. The Minister’s bluster revealed a lot. I noticed that he did not actually answer my question. If the Government’s concern is the wish to bring a trade remedy during recess, they have to invent a new constitutional procedure to do that. I am afraid that is a very thin case and the Minister did not provide a reason why the new process is required in the interests of brevity. He was not able to give us any clear information, so we will push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this is will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 12, in clause 32, page 19, line 32, after “which” insert—
“section (Dumping of goods and related activities: enhanced parliamentary procedure, etc)(6) applies and”.
This amendment is consequential on NC5.
New clause 5—Dumping of goods and related activities: enhanced parliamentary procedure, etc—
“(1) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State in exercise of the power in section 13(5) except in accordance with the steps set out in subsections (2) to (5).
(2) The first step is that a Minister of the Crown must lay before the House of Commons a draft of the regulations that it is proposed be made.
(3) The second step is that a Minister of the Crown must make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons setting out, in respect of proposed regulations of which a draft has been laid in accordance with subsection (2)(b), the amount of import duty proposed to be applicable to any goods that are or are proposed to be subject to a quota.
(4) The third step is that the House of Commons passes a resolution arising from the motion made in the form specified in subsection (4) (whether in the form of that motion or as amended).
(5) The fourth step is that the regulations that may then be made must, in respect of any matters specified in subsection (4), give effect to the terms of the resolution referred to in subsection (5).
(6) No regulations may be made under the following provisions unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons—
(a) paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4 (definitions and determinations in relation to goods being “dumped”);
(b) paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 (determination of certain matters relating to “injury” to a UK industry);
(c) paragraph 26(1) of Schedule 4 (provision for suspension of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedies);
(d) paragraph (1)(2)(c) of Schedule 5 (defining a “significant” increase)
(e) paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 (definitions relating to “serious injury” to a UK industry);
(f) paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 5 (provision for suspension of safeguarding remedies).”
This new clause establishes a system of enhanced parliamentary procedure for regulations setting quotas under Clause 13 to give effect to recommendations of the TRA, with a requirement for the House of Commons to pass an amendable resolution authorising the quota provisions of the proposed regulations, and also requires that certain regulations under Schedules 4 and 5 are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Graham Stuart
The Bill ensures that the UK customs regime is ready for EU exit. A key part of our readiness for exit day is our ability to operate our own trade remedies system. Trade is good for the UK. It can lead to higher wages, stimulate business efficiency and productivity and improve consumer choice. Analysis by the OECD suggests that a 10% increase in openness is associated with a 4% increase in income per head.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify whether the Government have done a comparative impact assessment of the processes involved with the EU and the processes they are trying to put in place in terms of speed and timeliness, which we are all concerned about?
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. I will seek at some point in the debate to address his point.
Free trade does not and should not mean trade without rules. Trade remedies are an important safety net. They can help enforce the rules that make free trade work by addressing injury to a domestic industry caused by unfair trading practices or unforeseen surges in imports. That is why all major WTO members have a trade remedies regime, and why we are taking forward the measures in the Bill. The European Commission currently carries out trade remedies investigations and imposes measures on our behalf. Once we leave the EU, we will need to be able to do that for ourselves. Clause 13, together with schedules 4 and 5, sets up the UK framework to allow us to do just that.
These proposals fall under the international framework set by the WTO. We are legislating for the full suite of powers permitted under that framework, which will enable us to impose additional duties on imports that cause injury to UK industry. The message is clear: free trade and the benefits it brings are welcome, but the UK will act decisively to address trade that causes injury to our domestic industries.
We cannot forget the wider ecosystem of our economy. Tackling injury is the priority, and the Bill makes clear that there is a presumption in favour of imposing additional duties when UK industry suffers injury as a result of unfairly dumped or subsidised imports. In recent years, trade remedy measures have protected UK industry and its employees, particularly in the steel and ceramics sectors but also in the chemicals, biofuels and glass industries. Considering that manufacturing contributes around 10% of UK gross value added and 8% of employment, the need for the UK to have a trade remedies system once we leave the EU is apparent.
Without the ability operate our own trade remedies regime, the UK would be exposed to unfair trading practices and unforeseen surges in imports, with potentially damaging consequences for UK industry and the economy more widely. However, there must also be a mechanism for ensuring that imposing such duties is not contrary to the best interests of the UK as a whole. Duties on imports can increase costs for downstream industries that use those imports to create their products. They can also hit the purses of consumers. That is why the Bill ensures that any duties are set at the level needed to address injury to UK industry and no higher. That levels the playing field without causing unnecessary harm to downstream users and consumers.
We are also building in a safety valve to ensure that measures are not imposed where they are not in the overall interests of the UK. The economic interest test will consider whether duties would have a disproportionate impact on a particular area of the UK or on particular groups in the UK. The test will also consider issues such as the impact on the longer-term competitive environment in the UK.
Businesses can have full confidence that that test, and investigations as a whole, will be objective and impartial. The new Trade Remedies Authority, which will be established through the Trade Bill, will have the independence and technical expertise to determine complex matters of fact. When the authority concludes that measures are justified, it will make independent recommendations to Ministers, who will then reach a final decision. Ministers will be able to reject recommendations to impose duties where they consider they are not in the public interest. Where Ministers do so, they will do so transparently, and they will have to make a statement to Parliament setting out their reasons.
As Monckton Chambers noted in its response to the trade White Paper, that structure ensures that
“the complex judgments made in such cases are, and are seen to be, made independently”.
It strikes a delicate balance between ensuring that the investigation and the calculation of proportionate duties is carried out by impartial experts, and ensuring that there is an opportunity for Ministers to intervene if duties are not in the public or wider economic interest. We believe that these provisions are therefore fundamental to establish a robust but proportionate trade remedies system for the UK.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is lovely to serve under your chairmanship again today, Ms Buck. The Minister has clearly had three or four Weetabix today, given his assertions. I say to him: legislate in haste and repent in court at leisure—for these are the sort of things that will be challenged in the courts. Unless the judges in those courts are going to be enemies of the people, we are best to get it right first-hand. Lord Judge made that very point today, and he was formerly Lord Chief Justice; so we cannot ignore parliamentary scrutiny on this particular issue.
New clause 5 establishes a system of enhanced parliamentary regulations for setting quotas under clause 13 to give effect to recommendations of the TRA, with a requirement for the House to pass an amendable resolution authorising the quota provisions of the proposed regulations. It also requires that certain regulations under schedules 4 and 5 be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I have made this point in the past and make it again. The new clause seeks to introduce a scrutiny role for Parliament in this crucial area of taxation and trade policy. The current provision in clause 13 gives the Secretary of State powers through regulation to introduce a tariff rate quota to determine the amount of import duty applicable to certain imported goods, after he has accepted a recommendation from the Trade Remedies Authority. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to revoke or suspend the tariff rate quota.
New clause 5 would instead ensure a democratic and open process, by making sure that Parliament has that power—not just the Secretary of State. The enhanced parliamentary procedure also ensures that there is a failsafe in the event that the Trade Remedies Authority makes a recommendation for the suspension of a quota and the Secretary of State refuses. In that instance Parliament has the ability to overrule the Secretary of State and side with the expert recommendation of the Trade Remedies Authority if it so decides.
I am sure that hon. Members of the Committee are hearing echoes from last week in relation to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. We have heard about it today, and that is our job on this side of the Committee. I am not sure whether the Minister thinks we should not do that, but we will continue to do it. We are concerned that if we do not have parliamentary scrutiny and oversight and the expertise that comes with that, we will end up in the courts. The Minister’s wish that things do not get delayed will be thrown out of the window by the approach that the Government seem to be taking.
Suffice to say that, if the Government are arguing that this is a money Bill, which it is, and it goes to the House of Lords— who will probably have to watch it go past as though it was a bus—they are tacitly accepting that the measures contained here are essentially fiscal. It is therefore appropriate that statements made to the House of any regulatory changes in relation to fiscal matters are Parliament’s responsibility and duty, as they have been for centuries, and we believe that there should be a vote if appropriate. The system outlined would provide a very robust means of doing that. I know that virtually every Minister, not just this Minister, would not want to have that level of scrutiny, but it comes with the job; scrutiny has to be there. Of course, an annual fiscal statement, such as that expected in the spring, with subsequent parliamentary authority could also prove a mechanism for us to test it out.
I hope that Conservative Members will not take a blasé approach and brush aside the issue of parliamentary democracy on the grounds that the Opposition somehow want to drag the matter out in the future. We do not; we want to make sure that this works properly. We all accept that we have to have a process in place, but let us get it right and hold Ministers to account.
Kirsty Blackman
The Government have asked for an awful lot of trust. They are asking us to trust them to make the right decision. Given that they do not have a track record of making such decisions over a very long number of years, it is very difficult for us to trust the Government on that. There is also the fact that the Government said that they would table amendments to clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and then they did not.
I do not think that the Conservative Government have quite recognised what they are doing with all their decisions to hold power in the Executive over any number of things. When the Conservatives are inevitably no longer in government there will be another Government in place, and they will be in opposition saying, “Why are so many decisions being made by the Executive without parliamentary scrutiny?”
The UK is at a point where we are choosing how our future looks in relation to Brexit. We are choosing how things will go in this Parliament, and into the future. We are choosing how much say we will have over trade policy, so it is vital how we decide to go about this. The way that the Government are setting this up is absolutely wrong. There should be parliamentary scrutiny of such things, and democratically elected Members should have the opportunity to look at them, to have an input and not just have them done by public notice.
Graham Stuart
The Opposition parties protest too much. As we all know, the point of a trade remedies system is to be balanced, proportionate and move swiftly to protect British industry. That is why we are setting up, through the Trade Bill, the specialist body to do that: the Trade Remedies Authority. We are talking about the implementation of the Trade Remedies Authority’s recommendations. Why on earth, after that exhaustive effort, with the appropriate, balanced tests in place, would anyone want to create burdensome, parliamentary oversight? It does not make any sense.
The TRA makes the decision. If the Secretary of State disagrees with it, they will have to come to Parliament and make a statement, so there will be the opportunity to deal with that. When the TRA has made an assessment and wants to help British industry, why on earth would the Opposition parties want to make a wider political point about lack of scrutiny, just for the sake of it, when it is totally inappropriate for this measure? I leave outsiders to judge whether that is for political interests or for the interests of either British consumers or producers.
Kirsty Blackman
If the Trade Remedies Authority will be so good at making decisions, why will the Government simply have to make a written statement to the House if they disagree with it, rather than go through some kind of regulation procedure? If the Trade Remedies Authority is set up in such a great way that it will always make the best decisions, why will the Minister be allowed to disagree with it simply by written statement, and not by any sort of parliamentary procedure?
Graham Stuart
The legislation makes it clear that the Secretary of State should look at it, and various people who have commented on the structure have said that it is right that, although the main body of work should be conducted by experts, ultimately it should be a politician accountable to Parliament, part of a democratic process, who should make that decision. Were they in any way to disagree, they would have to come to Parliament to make a statement. That is appropriate and proportionate, and why on earth the Opposition parties would want to go to such lengths to try to stop us bringing in effective remedy to protect British producers, I cannot imagine.
Jonathan Reynolds
Very briefly, why can the Minister not give us any detail about the methodology by which injury will be calculated, or any of the basic details that the US and the EU have already put in primary legislation? He cannot tell us how that will be because it is not in the Bill. Surely, we need some parliamentary safeguards about what the decisions will be, because the Minister cannot tell us the process that will be followed.
Graham Stuart
Our purpose here is to be probed, so even when that probing is redundant or tiresome, one should deal with it in as fair a way as one possibly can. As we know, this is a framework Bill; the secondary legislation, which will have parliamentary scrutiny, will bring in the details as it does in most other jurisdictions. We will follow a balanced, proportionate and effective basis to ensure that we assess that injury in the right way, and we will do so under the aegis of the WTO. Efforts to cut and paste aspects of the WTO system on to the face of our legislation when we are subject to WTO rules anyway are unhelpful and unnecessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Dumping of goods or foreign subsidies causing injury to UK industry
Peter Dowd
I beg to move amendment 23, in schedule 4, page 58, line 2, after “consumption”, insert “by independent customers”.
This amendment requires the comparable price for the purposes of determining the normal value to be assessed with respect to consumption by independent customers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 24, in schedule 4, page 58, line 4, at end insert “sub-paragraphs (2A) to (2L) and with”.
This amendment paves the way for Amendment 25.
Amendment 25, in schedule 4, page 58, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) the following shall apply.
(2B) Where the exporter in the exporting country does not produce or does not sell the like goods, the normal value may be established on the basis of prices of other sellers or producers.
(2C) Prices between parties which appear to be associated or to have a compensatory arrangement with each other shall not be considered to be in the ordinary course of trade and shall not be used to establish the normal value unless it is determined that they are unaffected by the relationship.
(2D) Sales of the like goods intended for consumption in the exporting foreign country or territory shall normally be used to determine the normal value if such sales volume constitutes 5% or more of the sales volume exported to the United Kingdom, but a lower volume of sales may be used when, for example, the prices charged are considered representative for the market concerned.
(2E) When there are no or insufficient sales of the like goods in the ordinary course of trade, or where, because of the particular market situation, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be calculated on the basis of—
(a) the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits, or
(b) the export prices, in the ordinary course of trade, to an appropriate third country, provided that those prices are representative.
(2F) Sales of the like goods in the domestic market of the exporting foreign country or territory, or export sales to a third country, at prices below unit production costs plus selling, general and administrative costs shall be treated as not being in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price, and disregarded in determining the normal value, if it is determined that such sales are made within an extended period in substantial quantities, and are at prices which do not provide for the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
(2G) The amounts for selling, for general and administrative costs and for profits shall be based whenever possible on actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product by the exporter or producer under investigation.
(2H) When it is not possible to determine such amounts on the basis prescribed in sub-paragraph (2G), the amounts may be determined on the basis of—
(a) the weighted average of the actual amounts determined for other exporters or producers subject to investigation in respect of production and sales of the like product in the domestic market of the country of origin,
(b) the actual amounts applicable to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the same general category of products for the exporter or producer in question in the domestic market of the country of origin,
(c) any other reasonable method, provided that the amount for profit so established shall not exceed the profit normally realised by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin.
(2I) If the TRA determines that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence in that country of significant distortions, the normal value shall be constructed exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks, subject to the following provisions.
(2J) “Significant distortions” for this purpose means distortions which occur when reported prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials and energy, are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by substantial government intervention.
(2K) The TRA shall use the corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country with a similar level of economic development as the exporting country, provided the relevant data are readily available; and, where there is more than one such country, preference shall be given, where appropriate, to countries with an adequate level of social and environmental protection;
(2L) If such data are not available, the TRA may use any other evidence it deems appropriate for establishing a fair normal value, including undistorted international prices, costs, or benchmarks; or costs in the exporting country to the extent that they are positively established not to be distorted.”
This amendment makes further provision on the face of the Bill about how the normal value and the comparable price are to be determined in certain circumstances.
Amendment 26, in schedule 4, page 58, line 6, at end insert—
“(2M) A fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value.
(2N) The comparison for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2M) shall be made at the same level of trade and in respect of sales made at, as closely as possible, the same time and with due account taken of other differences which affect price comparability.
(2O) Where the normal value and the export price as established are not on such a comparable basis, due allowance, in the form of adjustments, shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences in factors which are claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability.”
This amendment provides for fair comparison between the export price and the normal value.
Amendment 27, in schedule 4, page 58, leave out lines 8 to 15 and insert—
“(a) to provide guidance with respect to the application of sub-paragraphs (2) to (2O).”
This amendment replaces the provision for definitions of key terms and the determination of related matters in individual cases with guidance about the application of the existing provisions and those contained in Amendments 25 and 26.
Amendment 62, in schedule 5, page 80, line 5, at end insert—
“and shall be determined in accordance with Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards.”
This amendment provides that the meaning of serious injury for the purposes of Schedule 5 shall reflect the relevant provisions of WTO Agreement on Safeguards.
Amendment 63, in schedule 5, page 80, line 6, after “make” insert “further”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 62.
Amendment 64, in schedule 5, page 80, line 9, after “make” insert “further”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 62.
Peter Dowd
Clearly, being tiresome is my role in life, as far as the Minister is concerned.
Peter Dowd
I do it very well. I will make sure I have five Weetabix on Thursday.
I am glad to turn to some of the very substantial amendments that we seek to demonstrate to the Committee are essential for the proper operation of our customs regime and to provide a level playing field for vital British industries. We want to ensure that British industries do well. We wish them the best and we want to set the framework for them to do well. I say gently to the Minister that the only political points being made are from him. We all want British industry to do well; we all have industry and businesses in our constituencies—I have a huge port in my constituency. Frankly, the idea that Labour wants businesses to do well simply because of parliamentary democracy is nonsensical.
The amendments clarify a number of important points about constructing a functional trade remedy mechanism that will not be open to challenge in the courts and will not slow the process down. The Government seem to have completely missed that. The amendments will establish a level playing field for the purpose of promoting and encouraging free trade across UK borders, ensuring that British producers are not unfairly disadvantaged.
It is important at this stage to remind ourselves of the comments made at the Bill’s evidence session on this particular point, to briefly set the context for the amendments. Dr Cohen from the British Ceramic Confederation pointed out last week that a remedy is not a matter of protectionism, but is simply a means of addressing “unfair competition” when overseas manufacturers are not playing by the internationally agreed rules. Dr Cohen made it clear, by using the example of the ceramics industry in the Minister’s constituency, that it is not the case that our producers have skimped on investment or have failed to seek out productivity enhancing measures, because they take every opportunity to compete. Indeed they have made very heavy investment in
“state-of-the-art, energy-efficient manufacturing with digital printing technology.”
Given a level playing field, this industry can, in Dr Cohen’s words,
“take on the world. All we want is a level playing field” ––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 67, Q104.]
and trade remedies that allow us to ensure the greatest level of trade.
Nic Dakin
It is a pleasure as always to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the amendment is about certainty for business and industry. At some point, the Government need to bring detail forward. The longer detail is left, the more problematic it will be for business confidence, particularly in an industry such as steel, which is freely traded. It is a free trade industry, so it needs to ensure fair trade. That is why it is not surprising that steel has such a significant number of trade defence instruments in the European Union. That ensures a level playing field under WTO rules against other parts of the world where people want to trade unfreely.
At some point the Government need to bring forward the detail. The problem with this part of the Bill is that it is just a framework with nothing more to it. I therefore very much welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends, because they would bring some certainty and sense into the area. At some point the Government will have to do that. They may say the amendments are not appropriate now—they are drawn very much from what is already there in the European Union and have been written across—so my challenge to them is to ask why they are not appropriate. When will we have the appropriate provisions in place?
We need to have certainty and confidence. These major foundation industries, such as steel, ceramics, oil and gas, that rely on strong trade defence instruments to ensure that they can trade not only freely but fairly need significant capital investment to stay at the cutting edge of development. To make that capital investment now, they need confidence about the framework of the future. That is why the Government should not dilly-dally. The sooner they can bring things forward the better.
The Opposition are doing their job in trying to be helpful to Government by bringing forward something that is compliant with WTO rules and would give the necessary confidence. We would know more about how investigations would be conducted, how calculations would be made and how remedies would be applied—the sort of detail that industry needs.
In a sense, the challenge to the Government is that we all agree. I welcome the Minister’s robust approach this morning—it is the approach we always enjoy from him—but there has been a clear commitment to speedy, timely and effective protection and relief for businesses that are unfairly competed against by the threat of dumping from abroad. However, we need appropriate mechanisms in place to deliver on that rhetoric. The longer it takes to get that detail in place, the more the hesitation, concern and lack of trust in the Government will grow. It is in no one’s interest that the Government should not be trusted in such a crucial area. Therefore, the Government, by taking steps sooner rather than later, and embracing the Opposition proposals, would be moving briskly in the direction of the Minister’s rhetoric.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Members for Bootle and for Scunthorpe for excellent contributions to the debate. I entirely agreed with many of the issues that they highlighted.
The amendments would set out a great deal of the technical detail about the determination and calculation of dumping on the face of the Bill, rather than in secondary legislation, and would require the Government to define the meaning of
“serious injury to UK producers”
affected by unforeseen surges in imports, in accordance with article 4 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards.
Of course, we accept that it will be necessary to set out further details in legislation. As I and my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary have said from the beginning, the Bill is a framework Bill. It is intended to provide the framework for the UK’s trade remedy system but, as is normal where there is a great deal of technical detail to be legislated for, that will be set out in secondary legislation.
Industry has contributed its thinking to the detailed technical areas, and we shall engage with all stakeholders with detailed proposals in a series of meetings starting next month. I entirely agree with those who have spoken so far about the need for speed; but they would also agree about the need to get things right. Our aim and the purpose of introducing the Bill is to make sure we have a suitable framework for the long term. That is why we are going to get it right, as well as getting it in place in the appropriate time.
Graham Stuart
I shall do so in due course. The detail of the secondary legislation will be constrained by and compliant with the WTO rules, but the rules that we set will be appropriate for the UK. Because they will be set out in secondary legislation there will be the necessary flexibility to allow changes to be made quickly, reflecting developments in best practice and WTO case law. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is important, and that is why we do not think it is appropriate to include those matters in the Bill.
As to market distortions I reassure the hon. Member for Bootle that the legislation will enable the UK trade remedy system to account for particular market situations in anti-dumping cases. All major economies have a trade remedies framework that allows alternative methodologies to be used in investigations when the normal value of a good cannot be properly determined based on information from exporting countries. The UK will be no different. We have already discussed this with industry and will continue to do so, to get it right.
I recognise the underlying intent of amendment 62, to increase legal certainty for UK industry by including the requirement to act in accordance with the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. However, it is unnecessary. As members of the WTO we will be required to adhere to the provisions of WTO agreements, and we have been clear about the fact that we are committed to developing the detail of the UK’s trade remedy system in a way that is fully compliant with the obligations. By way of further reassurance, clause 28 of the Bill requires the Secretary of State and the TRA to have regard to their international obligations. On that basis I hope that the hon. Gentlemen can see that their concerns will be met by the approach that we shall continue to take, and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Peter Dowd
I thank the Minister in good faith for his explanation. None the less, the Opposition take the view that there is a cumulative effect to the proposals. It is okay for the Minister to say that this is a framework and that we will add all the detail later, but there is a difference between a framework and a skeleton. This is not a framework but a skeleton. We must add meat to the bones of the skeleton, but we have not got that here today.
While I accept what the Minister is saying in good faith, we need to press this issue. We must make the point that we need more detail and more certainty. Of course, he might not be the Minister in the not-too-distant future—we do not know who the Minister might be. Therefore, while I have every faith in him, I am not sure whether I can say that about the future Minister.
Graham Stuart
It is a framework Bill—skeletal or otherwise—and the detail will come in secondary legislation, as is entirely normal for issues such as this. In response to the question from the hon. Member for Scunthorpe on when we will be ready to bring secondary legislation forward, we will do so as soon as possible. Evidently, that will need to be in time to ensure that the UK system is ready for when we exit the EU. That is the time constraint. We are working on this. We will engage in detail with industry, starting next month. We are bringing this forward as quickly as we can.
If the Opposition decide to press the amendment, that is fine, but cutting and pasting WTO agreements with which we will comply is not the same as having an appropriate system in place for the UK. This is not the right moment or place for these proposals, because this is framework legislation.
On why we should have secondary legislation, we need flexibility to adapt to developments in WTO case law and, if the Committee were to support the Opposition’s amendments, that flexibility would be removed. Changes in WTO case law are frequent: for instance, only last week there was a panel decision on article 2 of the WTO anti-dumping agreement. It is therefore important that we have the flexibility that only secondary legislation provides, so I ask the Opposition to think again.
Nic Dakin
Will the Minister confirm once more that the Government intend not to make things any more difficult for producers in terms of trade defence instruments and that, as the detail comes forward, people producing stuff in the UK will not be any worse off in future than under the current EU rules? I think that is what he is saying.
Graham Stuart
I would go further than that. By having a system that is entirely aligned with and attuned to the interests only of UK producers, we hope to have a better system than the one we have now. I cannot give firm timelines, because the TRA is not set up yet, but hopefully it will be speedier, more proportionate and balanced, absolutely scrupulous in observing WTO case law, flexible enough to implement it, better attuned to the needs of UK producers, and more effective at averting injury to them.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way and hope he will bear with me. Given the emphasis he is placing on the importance of secondary legislation, and the fact that, as he said a moment ago, the TRA has not been set up yet, has he had a chance to reconsider putting trade union representatives on the TRA?
Graham Stuart
It took the hon. Gentleman’s contribution finally to silence the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, who normally heckles throughout everyone’s address—[Interruption.]. As has rightly been said, that is harsh but fair.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The aim is that this should be an expert body, that the normal, rigorous civil service appointments process should be observed in its appointment and that we should have an organisation that has impartiality and effectiveness as its primary concerns, rather than being driven by political or indeed representative considerations. That is what we are planning to do.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jonathan Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 28, in schedule 4, page 58, line 33, after “contribution”, insert
“within the meaning of Article 1 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures”.
This amendment provides a definition of financial contribution by reference to the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 29, in schedule 4, page 59, line 24, at end insert—
“and shall be determined in accordance with Article 3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.”
This amendment provides that the meaning of injury for the purposes of Schedule 4 shall reflect the provisions of the relevant article of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.
Amendment 30,in schedule 4, page 59, line 25, after “make” insert “further”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
Amendment 31, in schedule 4, page 59, line 31, after “make” insert “further”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
Amendment 33, in schedule 4, page 61, line 20, at beginning insert
“having regard to the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures”.
This amendment requires regulations determining what constitutes “negligible” and “minimal” to have regard to relevant WTO provisions.
Jonathan Reynolds
This is the second group of amendments on today’s amendment paper relating to schedule 4, on injury caused by dumping. Amendment 28 provides a definition of financial contribution by reference to the WTO agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures. Amendment 29 provides that the meaning of injury for the purposes of schedule 4 shall reflect the provisions of the relevant article of the agreement on implementation of article VI of the general agreement on tariffs and trade 1994. Amendment 30 is consequential on amendment 29, as is amendment 31. Finally, amendment 33 requires regulations determining what constitutes “negligible” and “minimal” to have regard to relevant WTO provisions.
I recognise that in the previous debate the Minister moved a little toward us in acknowledging some of the shortcomings of the Bill and the areas where there will eventually have to be clarity. These amendments concern one of the central issues regarding how we construct our future trade defence policy. In last week’s evidence session, it was made clear by representatives of UK industries that Brexit represents a potential opportunity for the UK to expedite its remedial processes when it comes to dumping and calculating injury—something that has already been referenced by all sides in the discussion today and by the Minister.
Industry also emphasised that, while assessing dumping margins can be relatively easy and straightforward, calculating injury margin needs much more involvement from industry and Government, and the results are not always so obvious. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe has again mentioned the steel crisis, and I would direct Members to read the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s transcripts from the previous Parliament on the crisis, which articulate very clearly the issues involved. It is of great concern to the Opposition that manufacturers and British industry are telling us that the Bill is seriously lacking in the detail they need to plan effectively for the future.
Members of this Committee, as well as its witnesses last week, have spoken at some length on the shortcomings of the proposed approach, not least that UK industry will be in the dark until all the statutory instruments that are required have been promulgated. As industry and those in many parts of the parliamentary process have repeatedly emphasised—in contrast to the Minister’s comments—it is highly unusual that secondary legislation is considered the appropriate means through which to establish the central tenets of our future trade defence policy. Indeed, it is considered normal practice by most of our major trading partners for these issues to be dealt with in primary legislation. Equally, because of the way in which the statutory instruments will be considered, this forum might well be the only opportunity to debate these measures and give them the proper scrutiny they demand.
The point of the amendments is to bring some of the detail and certainty that UK industry is seeking. Understandably, members of UK industries feel anxious voyaging into the unknown with only vague reassurances from Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle has said, there is no certainty about this Government’s future or that of the individual Ministers concerned. As the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance has made clear—
The Chair
Order. Can I encourage the hon. Gentleman to be specific in relation to his amendments, as far as possible?
Jonathan Reynolds
I will be, Ms Buck.
The package of amendments offers a relatively straightforward solution to these issues by using a pre-existing, widely accepted set of terms to define injury. As referred to in amendment 29, the agreement on implementation of article VI of the general agreement on tariffs and trade 1994 is a set of World Trade Organisation rules, which already provides a blueprint to many major global economies. That will form a solid basis, which UK industry can use to start planning how it will adapt to the new post-Brexit landscape.
Complying with the requirements in the amendments will help to provide consistency following our exit from the European Union, and align us with existing trading standards in economies we seek to trade with globally. It makes little sense to delegate this decision to secondary legislation when we are already in a position to opt for a widely accepted and road-tested definition that would keep us aligned with potential trading partners. That would also have the major advantage of offering certainty to UK industries today—not years from now—on how the trading landscape will look post-Brexit, and allow them to plan accordingly.
I urge the Ministers to support this amendment. It is a relatively small commitment, which would help to bring consensus and certainty to the British economy.
Graham Stuart
These amendments seek to include specific reference to the relevant WTO agreements in the Bill. As I said in our earlier discussion, the Government have carefully considered the right balance between primary and secondary legislation. Where there are very technical provisions in a regime, those are usually set out in secondary legislation because they are very detailed. That is the case here, so we have taken powers to make the necessary regulations.
As a member of the World Trade Organisation, the UK will be required to abide by the WTO agreements. We intend fully to comply with these obligations, and the regulations will therefore reflect the detail of the WTO agreements. However, as I have said, clause 28 does require the Secretary of State, and the TRA, to have regard to international obligations, which should provide any reassurance needed.
It has been suggested that the injury margin is more complicated and harder to define than the dumping margin. We do not believe that that is the case. Both calculations are based on industry data and export data and involve a number of variables where the TRA would be afforded discretion to use its expertise in determining the appropriate approach.
Nic Dakin
Does the Minister recognise that the EU is moving away from that calculation and that, according to the evidence that was presented to us, that calculation involves greater bureaucracy but does not make a great deal of difference in the end, in terms of impact on prices?
Graham Stuart
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. From a technical point of view, I do not believe that the EU is moving away from its approach to injury. As I say, we are subject to the WTO. The Secretary of State has to have regard to international obligations, and the detail needs to go into secondary legislation. I therefore ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendment.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, which gave us some degree of detail that we have not had to date, but I think that there is a difference of opinion on some of the evidence we heard last week. In my notes, the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance made it clear that the methodology of the assessment on how to decide appropriate trade remedies was, in its words, a key detail that it is missing. It said that that was relevant in particular to the application of the lesser duty rule and that it would welcome further clarity and legal certainty. With that in mind, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 32, in schedule 4, page 61, line 20, leave out from ‘minimal’ to end of line 33.
This amendment removes the need for a market share requirement to be met before the TRA may initiate a dumping or subsidisation investigation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 61, line 45, leave out paragraphs (g) and (h).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.
Amendment 35, in schedule 4, page 62, line 1, leave out ‘(d)’ and insert ‘(c)’.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.
Amendment 36, in schedule 4, page 62, line 6, leave out ‘(d)’ and insert ‘(c)’.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.
Amendment 37, in schedule 4, page 62, line 16, leave out ‘(d)’ and insert ‘(c)’.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.
Amendment 38, in schedule 4, page 62, line 37, leave out ‘(d)’ and insert ‘(c)’.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.
Anneliese Dodds
We tabled the amendments because the proposed market share requirements will not only put us out of step with comparable nations but stop action being taken to prevent uncompetitive disruption of infant industries. According to the Government’s proposals, applications to the TRA for an investigation will be subject to a UK market share threshold. As with so much in the Bill—as we have been discussing—we do not know how the threshold will be determined nor what its range is likely to be, let alone the actual value for different industrial sectors. The Government have given as their explanation for the measure the filtering out of cases with little chance of success. Yet, as already discussed in Committee, the Government have already set out a range of tests that must be passed before any action can be taken—tests that are already more stringent than is the case under EU legislation, and considerably stronger than those that the EU is moving towards.
I normally agree fully with every word that is uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, but I did not completely agree when he said that he was pleased to hear the Government saying, or hinting at least, that we would have a system at least as favourable to British industry as the existing one. With the different tests to do with economic interest or public interest, whether those applied by the TRA or the Secretary of State, that regime is far more stringent than that applied by the EU.
In addition, I am concerned that the measure proposed in the Bill could cause a lot of ambiguity and be problematic for the TRA. We are informed that the TRA must accept an application that meets the UK market share threshold, although of course both it and the Secretary of State can then decide not to proceed as a result of their overly stringent tests once they get into the investigation—but let us leave that aside. If an application does not meet the UK threshold but does meet WTO thresholds, the TRA may use its discretion as to whether to accept it. However, we can legitimately ask why the TRA should be put in a potentially difficult position, especially when legal action could be levelled against it by the company that is deemed to have engaged in dumping precisely because the TRA has used that discretion.
In addition, I do not understand why the UK has decided to adopt an apparently higher threshold of market share before applications may be accepted when, according to the stakeholders I have talked to, no other country seems to have adopted that approach. This is not about criteria within the investigation: it is about the criteria necessary before an investigation is allowed at all. As with the unique electoral system that led to the hanging chad problem in the US, there is a clear reason why this approach is so unique: it is not workable. The Minister rightly referred to learning from best practice, so it would be helpful for us to know which countries have that test in place before an investigation can be started and why it was believed that this is best practice. I have so far not been able to find any countries that operate such a system. If there are some, it would be wonderful to hear about them.
The Minister suggested in his previous remarks that, much of the time, all the Government are doing is simply transposing WTO requirements. However, the terms of the general agreement on tariffs and trade enable countries to take action, particularly to prevent uncompetitive disruption to infant industries. That could be prevented by this kind of test before an investigation can even be started. That process of uncompetitive disruption to infant industries is known as material retardation, which is quite a well-known concept when it comes to trade disputes and is interpreted quite broadly.
Rules within the Mercosur agreement—the South American trade agreement—state that countries can take measures, first, to ensure that infant industries can be established, but also that there can be, without uncompetitive disruption, the establishment of a new branch of production in an existing industry, the substantial transformation of an existing industry or the substantial expansion of an existing industry supplying a relatively small proportion of domestic demand. That is a very wide reading of what measures against material retardation can enable, and a broad reading of the concept of an infant industry as well. Those rules are already in action in the Mercosur agreement, so I hope the Minister will clearly explain why the UK should deny itself those kind of powers that other countries seem keen to avail themselves of.
I hope he will also indicate how he envisages that market share restriction working, which will be used even before investigations start. I read the “Trade Remedies Research” paper, produced by Van Bael & Bellis and Copenhagen Economics, which I am sure other Members have looked at as well. They looked in great detail at some of the methodological issues relating to the use of trade remedies and they indicated in detail the variety of considerations relevant to calculating market share that the EU has used once an investigation has opened—not as part of a test to determine the opening of an investigation but as part of determining the harm caused by dumping.
They indicated the potential drawbacks of, for example, setting a quantitative measure on the evolution of import volumes in relative terms—in comparison with domestic consumption—in order to determine how the market share of foreign exporters against UK industry has changed over time following dumped imports. That is because our market in the UK is small, and so domestic consumption can vary dramatically from year to year because the number of industry operators tends to be more concentrated.
There are some very difficult methodological issues here when it comes to calculations that might be involved in an investigation. We are talking about the TRA having to carry out calculations potentially with a similar level of methodological difficulty, even before an investigation is opened. Will the Minister indicate what kind of methodology he proposes to avoid those problems? Above all, will he please let us know why our country seems to be adopting this approach, which, as I say, I cannot find any analogue for in comparable nations?
Kirsty Blackman
I will say just a few things to follow on from the shadow Front Benchers on this. It is strange that market share is being used in this regard as something that will be taken into account. It is almost as if the TRA cannot be bothered to investigate a company if it does not have a certain market share. For that industry, and for manufacturers in particular, it does not matter what their percentage of market share is; what matters is the injury that is being done to them by dumping. Market share is not relevant, and I do not understand why it is included in the Bill. It may be relevant to the Treasury because it affects the tax take it gets from the industry, but it is not relevant to the protection we should be affording to the industry.
This proposal has geographical implications, given that these new goods will be made in the industrial north of the country. Those products may not meet the market share threshold, but they may be incredibly innovative and may improve productivity and make this country a better place to be. Those things will not be taken into account.
I have argued previously that if the fishing industry is decimated as a result of Brexit, that is a geographical issue for the affected communities. It does not have a massive implication for the Treasury’s tax take, but it does for those communities. I fear that this market share test is not only unnecessary, but has implications for the choices that communities make.
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely, and conversely they are the ones that have been getting the most European funding, so the choice they thought they had to make because of the inequality and uneven economic growth in the United Kingdom will make them lose out in more than one way.
On the issue of new good and fledgling industries, we cannot predict what the world will look like in 20 years’ time. Who could have predicted the rise in the need for electric vehicle charging points, for example? If something suddenly becomes a thing, the effects cannot be predicted. For example, companies making paper straws in the UK are probably seeing their shares going through the roof. We cannot predict the market share of those companies and how quickly it will grow as a result of changes in the culture of the country. I do not think the market share test is appropriate. It is strange to have it in the Bill, and the Government need to rethink it.
Graham Stuart
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I hope I can reassure them about the issues they raised. Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding, which I can clear up.
Amendment 32 and its consequential amendments 34 to 38 seek to eliminate a market share threshold that we have designed to make sure businesses have a transparent benchmark for judging whether their complaint is likely to be successful. On the question of why we have the threshold, an independent evaluation of the EU system suggested that the system should focus on producers’ market share as a way of informing inquiries.
I was also asked which other countries have the threshold. We understand that other countries consider whether cases are likely to result in measures at the point of applications, but they tend to use rather opaque systems. The market share threshold is intended to give industry greater certainty in a more transparent way about how the system will operate in this country. We are learning from experiences in other countries and are seeking to improve on them to the betterment of our system.
The provisions for the market share threshold fit with the industry’s calls for the TRA to focus on the cases that matter most. For instance, the British Ceramic Confederation said in its response to our White Paper that the TRA
“should not spend its time investigating vexatious complaints and needs to focus on cases where there is a real UK manufacturing interest.”
The market share threshold will be part of providing that.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. The additional information that he provides is useful, but he still has not made it clear whether any other countries operate such a restriction. I appreciate what he says about the potential opacity of other regimes, but we have not had a clear answer to that question. It may well be that some independent actors have written an evaluation of the EU system that says that such an approach should be implemented. However, as I understand it, the EU has not committed to moving towards such a system. It seems to be just the UK that is explicitly adopting it as a policy commitment, unlike any other country.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for that comprehensive intervention. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Bootle, our aim is to make improvements. We want a better system that provides greater certainty for UK industry, and one that makes the TRA focus, as the industry has requested, on the cases of greatest import, not an opaque system as in other countries. The TRA may quickly respond to someone with a de minimis market share who comes forward with no real case and tell them that they have no chance, but what we are doing is creating a system that is much easier to understand and more transparent.
I hope the secondary legislation we implement will include other world firsts, too. So long as what we do is based on a proportionate, balanced approach that is fully compliant with the WTO and better tailored to the needs of British industry, I shall be proud to see us innovate. I am not afraid to innovate if it is in the interests of British industry and a better system. We should aspire to doing that.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister argues that, in the case of a producer with a small market share in the UK, there may be a disproportionate effect on UK consumers. Given that an economic interest test takes into account the impact on consumers, is the market share test necessary?
Graham Stuart
For the reasons I have set out, I think the market share test is an eminently sensible part of our regime. I hope the Committee will agree.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for letting us intervene—he has been very generous in that respect. I say gently that I would have hoped for a little more impact assessment before we signed up to a system that is, to adopt the kind of language he used, unique in the world and a world-beating innovation, if we are indeed doing that.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made clear that vexatious complaints will be screened out by the economic and public interest tests, which are more stringent than those in the EU regime that we will take on board under the TRA.
The Minister referred to this process being an indication to firms of whether they have any hope of success, but it is not. We are not talking about a guideline. We are talking about a threshold that is a block. Yes, that block can be disregarded by the TRA, but it cannot be overruled by the complainant. That is the whole point. It is not just an indication. It is stronger than a guideline or a set of theoretical considerations. It is potentially a block on firms trying to seek redress through the TRA, which is unique in the world. I had hoped that we might have more explanation of that, despite the Minister’s valiant attempts.
Graham Stuart
Let me try to come back again. The share test comes at the beginning. We have to think about the order. The point is to provide transparency at the beginning of the process and to ensure, exactly as industry has asked, that we do not waste time on complaints, vexatious or otherwise, that have no chance of resulting in measures. That is the whole point of the test. It will be quickly applied and—the Opposition do not seem to have understood this—will have exemptions for infant industries. The system will provide a more transparent form of that which is routinely applied in other countries.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jonathan Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 39, in schedule 4, page 64, line 21, at end insert—
“Part 2A
Recommendations: general provisions
12A (1) The provisions of this paragraph apply to all recommendations made by the TRA under this Schedule.
(2) In any case where the TRA makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State, the TRA must, at the same time as making that recommendation, provide any relevant select committee of the House of Commons with—
(a) a copy of that recommendation, and
(b) an account of the evidence on which the TRA has based that recommendation.”
This amendment requires recommendations made by the TRA under Schedule 4 to be made available to relevant select committees of the House of Commons, along with an account of the evidence basis for the recommendation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 70, in schedule 5, page 83, line 44, at end insert—
“Part 2A
Recommendations: general provisions
11A (1) The provisions of this paragraph apply to all recommendations made by the TRA under this Schedule.
(2) In any case where the TRA makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State, the TRA must, at the same time as making that recommendation, provide any relevant select committee of the House of Commons with—
(a) a copy of that recommendation, and
(b) an account of the evidence on which the TRA has based that recommendation.”
This amendment requires recommendations made by the TRA under Schedule 5 to be made available to relevant select committees of the House of Commons, along with an account of the evidence basis for the recommendation.
Jonathan Reynolds
These amendments have been grouped because they both refer to making recommendations by the new Trade Remedies Authority, and the evidential basis for those recommendations, available to the relevant Select Committees of the House.
Clearly, how the TRA operates is essential to our future trade policy. We know some things from the Bill about how it will operate—schedule 5 refers to the procedure that will be followed where an increase in imports of goods causes serious injury to UK producers, so there is more detail than we had previously—but the intention is for further detail about the interpretation of what constitutes a significant increase to be set out in secondary legislation. The TRA will also have considerable discretion in many areas of its operation.
Given the stage we are at with the Bill, we are being given a fairly limited set of options in terms of addressing the lack of accountability in key parts of how the framework will operate. These amendments would introduce an additional layer of scrutiny and consultation, which is needed to ensure that the interests of UK industry are properly represented. Select Committees provide vital checks and balances, and given their policy specialisms and ability to call relevant witnesses, they are best placed to scrutinise decisions by the TRA.
These amendments would not only allow us to address the democratic deficit, but provide a platform for engaging with the wide range of inputs needed fully to understand the implications of TRA decisions on different parts of our economy and different segments of UK industry. That might include the Transport Committee, the Treasury Committee, the International Trade Committee and, of course, the Exiting the European Union Committee. The amendments would provide an important democratic backstop to the new process that avoids concentrating too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State or the TRA. In the absence of greater detail in the Bill, I urge members of the Committee to support the amendments to bring some much-needed future accountability to the TRA and to our trade defence policy.
Graham Stuart
New paragraphs 12A and 11A, introduced by amendments 39 and 70, would require the recommendations made by the TRA under schedule 4 to be made available to relevant Select Committees of the House of Commons, along with an account for the evidence base of those recommendations. Let me begin by stating that transparency is one of the four design principles set out by the Government for the trade remedies framework. The inherent assumption of a lack of scrutiny implied by the amendments is simply untrue.
To protect the TRA’s status as an independent public body, its recommendations to the Secretary of State should not be subject to political influence before a decision to accept or reject them has even been taken. Those recommendations will be made on the basis of the framework set out in this legislation and underpinned by technical and procedural details to be set out in secondary legislation. Giving the Select Committee a role in that process will undermine the impartiality of the process—an impartiality which is supported by industry. Publishing the recommendation in advance of the decision by the Secretary of State could also further undermine impartiality by increasing lobbying of Ministers by the affected parties, and could also lead to unnecessary disruption of the markets affected.
The Bill provides for public scrutiny of both the TRA and the Secretary of State’s decisions. Whether the Secretary of State accepts or rejects the recommendation, the evidence base for the TRA’s recommendation will be made available to the public, as is required under the terms of the WTO agreements. Furthermore, if the Secretary of State rejects the TRA’s recommendation to apply measures, he or she must lay a statement before Parliament setting out the reasons for that decision. Parliament will then be able to hold the Secretary of State to account if it considers the reasons to be unsound.
Kirsty Blackman
It would be lovely if the Minister could explain how parliamentarians can hold Ministers to account if they make a written statement.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady has been a Member of this House for some time and will know that there is a series of means by which that can be pursued. Making a statement to the House provides the initial spur to start that scrutiny, if that is what the Select Committee or others decide. There are urgent questions, Adjournment debates, Backbench Business Committee debates—I will not list them all, as the hon. Lady is probably rather better on parliamentary process than I am. She will know that there is a huge number and they can all be used. Her Majesty’s Opposition or the SNP and their spokesmen have other means by which to raise the issue.
On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Jonathan Reynolds
I have two observations to make, the first of which is on impartiality. I would strongly refute that scrutiny by Select Committee would increase the partisanship or the partiality of the transparency of the process. The House’s Select Committees are to me the best example of cross-party working and cross-party accountability in the entire parliamentary process, and we should not shy away from using them when they can improve the process.
Secondly, there was reference to technical and political considerations. The decisions are not just technical. Of course they will draw on technical expertise and criteria, but they are inherently political. We saw that in the steel crisis, where frankly even with very clear technical evidence of dumping, there was a political point of view—not one I share—that the benefits to the UK of dumped steel outweighed the benefits of protecting the UK steel industry. That was not held by all parts of the Government, but certainly by some.
A transparent process that allows decisions to be analysed in that context would certainly add to the process, especially when we consider the lack of detail we have so far. I therefore press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Peter Dowd
I beg to move amendment 40, in schedule 4, page 65, line 2, leave out from “goods” to end of line 3.
This amendment removes the requirement for the TRA to be satisfied that requiring a guarantee meets the economic interest test.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 58, in schedule 4, page 75, line 23, leave out from first “the” to end of line 24 and insert—
“economic benefits of the remedy to the United Kingdom industry within the meaning of paragraph 6 are significantly outweighed by the economic costs to the importers, users or consumers of the goods in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment provides greater specificity to the operation of the economic interest test.
Amendment 59, in schedule 4, page 75, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
This amendment removes the requirement to take account of the economic significance of affected industries and consumers in the United Kingdom.
Amendment 75, in schedule 5, page 93, line 22, leave out from first “the” to end of line 23 and insert—
“the economic benefits of the remedy to the United Kingdom industry within the meaning of paragraph 3 are significantly outweighed by the economic costs to the importers, users or consumers of the goods in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment provides greater specificity to the operation of the economic interest test.
Amendment 76, in schedule 5, page 93, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
This amendment removes the requirement to take account of the economic significance of affected industries and consumers in the United Kingdom.
Peter Dowd
This group of amendments relates to the economic interest test in the Bill. It requires the Trade Remedies Authority or Secretary of State to consider an economic interest test before recommending an anti-dumping remedy. That means that the TRA or Secretary of State must take account of a number of additional factors when considering whether to apply an anti-dumping remedy, to determine whether the remedy will be in the United Kingdom’s wider economic interest.
This is a highly unusual measure. The Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance describes the application of an economic interest test as “unique” among WTO users of trade remedies. There are few precedents for a functioning economic interest test, as only a handful of Governments conduct them. This provision is not in the WTO agreement or in EU regulation. Furthermore, the economic interest test in the Bill is very widely drawn, allowing the TRA or Secretary of State to introduce a wide range of additional macroeconomic considerations into the determination of a trade remedy.
It has been only two years since the former Chancellor of the Exchequer stood on a platform of building a Britain
“carried aloft by the march of the makers”,
yet now we are being carried off in a different direction, hence our amendment. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will note that, despite that, we have not taken the step of seeking to remove the economic interest test entirely, to bring the UK into line with well worn national agreements and regulations. Instead, in the spirit of conciliation, we have tabled a number of amendments that would clarify the exact uses of an economic interest test and ensure that the Secretary of State could not overwrite the democratic process entirely.
Amendment 40 would remove the economic interest test from the consideration of the Trade Remedies Authority at the preliminary stage of determination. Part 2 of schedule 4 gives the TRA powers to make an initial, provisional recommendation to the Secretary of State that dumping may have occurred and that therefore all importers of the goods in question should be required to give a guarantee in respect of any additional amount of import duty that would have been applicable, or may be applicable, subject to further investigation. The Bill requires the TRA to have considered first whether that requirement to guarantee is necessary to prevent injury and, secondly, whether it would meet the economic interest test.
As amendment 40 makes clear, we do not believe that it is appropriate for the economic interest test to be inserted at this early stage, when provisional remedies are being required ahead of a later full and final determination. The addition of an economic interest test at this point in the process places a large additional burden on the TRA when only provisional guarantees are being requested. It is impractical for the TRA to be expected to carry out a full economic interest test at this stage. It could also bear down on the speed at which all necessary provisional remedies are applied. That relates to the points about speed and pushing things on, as the Minister would like. Slowing the process will allow injury to producers to continue unchecked, reducing the efficiency of the system as a whole.
Furthermore, the application of the economic interest test at this stage in the remedy process goes well beyond WTO rules, which require only a consideration of injury. This would leave the UK with a higher bureaucratic threshold to rectify injury than most nations we hope to trade with. Surely the Minister must agree that a central ambition of any Trade Remedies Authority is responsiveness and agility, but this measure flies in the face of what he told us earlier. Our amendment removes the burden of the economic interest test being placed on the TRA at this early stage in proceedings to allow it to take swift provisional measures pending further investigation, and so that we can act quickly as and when necessary to protect our industries.
Amendment 58 addresses part 6 of schedule 4, which sets out the economic interest test in more detail. We hope to address the balance of priorities that the economic interest test attempts to juggle to give proper due to the interests of producers and, subsequently, consumers, workers and so on. The point was made in the evidence session that producers are also consumers, who will no longer be able buy anything if they lose their jobs due to dumping injury.
This amendment clarifies the exact circumstances in which the economic interest test is considered not to have been met. There is little detail in the Bill regarding what those circumstances might be. Instead, sweeping powers are given to the Secretary of State to make up his or her mind as he or she sees fit. That is in keeping with the Government’s wider approach to the Bill.
This amendment clarifies that the economic interest test will be assumed to have been met so that a remedy can be applied, unless the
“economic benefits of the remedy to the United Kingdom industry… are significantly outweighed by the economic costs to the importers, users or consumers of the goods in the United Kingdom.”
It attempts to clarify the balance of forces that should weigh up any judgment in that regard. That is a completely reasonable addition to the Bill, which merely adds necessary detail where it is lacking, and gives all parties concerned clarity about how different interests will be considered. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment, which will clearly improve the Bill without cutting across the established roles of different actors in the process being developed.
Amendment 59 looks a few lines further down the list of factors that the TRA or Secretary of State should take into account when
“considering whether the application of an anti-dumping remedy or anti-subsidy remedy is not in the economic interest of the United Kingdom”.
Our amendment seeks to remove the first provision that states that the TRA or Secretary of State should consider the economic relevance of
“affected industries and consumers in the United Kingdom”.
As it stands, schedule 4 gives preference to large enterprises over small and to established sectors over new. Without our amendment, the Secretary of State could stamp out a small, growing sector or extinguish an embryonic area of British entrepreneurship because they deemed it not of “economic significance” to the UK. That would be a travesty. It seems to be an incredibly short-sighted approach to the UK economy and, if I may say so, strangely interventionist from a party that claims not to believe in the state picking winners. By extension, it cannot justify allowing the state to forcibly create losers.
It is highly unusual and inappropriate to allow the Secretary of State to write off an infant industry or area of consumption based on a crystal ball prediction of its future significance. Amendment 59 removes this dangerous sub-paragraph from the Bill to ensure that Secretaries of State keep their minds on likely impacts across the different interests at play, rather than gambling with the UK economy. Again, this is not a radical step, but a sensible reduction in the scope of the powers being handed to the Secretary of State, tabled in the name of democracy and, for the Minister, good economic management, of which the Government are losing sight.
Amendment 75 addresses one of the strangest lines in the Bill: sub-paragraph 2 of schedule 5 part 5, on page 93. For a Bill with very little detail, it is incredible that the Government managed to include a sentence of such baffling circularity. It bears repeating, so the Minister may hear it read aloud. It is reminiscent of Danny Kaye in the film “The Court Jester” saying:
“The pellet with the poison’s in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.”
It is well worth watching, and this pales into insignificance—I am sure Danny Kaye would do a better reading of it than I. It says:
“The economic interest test is met in relation to the application of a safeguarding remedy if the application of the remedy is in the economic interest of the United Kingdom.”
It is remarkable—I think it is wonderful—that somebody produced that phrase. Perhaps the Minister would like to elaborate on it, while using the words “economic interest”, “application” and “remedy” just once each. I eagerly await his explanation of the useful addition that the clause makes to an otherwise rather slim Bill.
Nevertheless, amendment 75 may help the Minister by adding the wording that I tried to add to schedule 4 of the Bill through amendment 58. Amendment 75 is therefore effectively a consequential amendment, in that it adds much-needed clarity to the balance of interests that the Secretary of State should weigh up when assessing the economic test in schedule 5, to match the amendment that we have set out in schedule 4 already.
Similarly, amendment 76 removes the requirement that the Trade Remedies Authority or the Secretary of State consider
“the economic significance of affected industries and consumers in the United Kingdom”.
Again, we seek with the amendment to adjust schedule 5 of the Bill to align it with the changes that I outlined in my comments on schedule 4, this time to reduce the scope of the Secretary of State to predict the future success or otherwise of sectors of the British economy, or to preference large-scale industries over emergent or otherwise vital forces that might just end up giving our ailing, low-productivity economy a much-needed boost.
In summary, as hon. Members on both sides can see, we are engaging with this vital section of the Bill fully and constructively, to ensure that the right balance of interests is properly considered when trade remedies are investigated, and to construct a properly efficient process for doing so. I look forward to the Minister engaging with all the amendments on similarly constructive terms, and I hope that Committee members will carefully consider supporting them to ensure the best level playing field for UK industry, fair regard to producers and consumers alike, and an agile and efficient means of remedying any disputes that might arise.
Graham Stuart
Let me start by explaining that the objective of the economic interest test is to ensure that measures are in the best interests of the UK. It ensures that measures are not imposed where they might have disproportionate impacts on wider groups such as downstream industries or, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, consumers. Let me take the amendments in turn and set out why they would undermine our objective of a balanced and proportionate trade remedies framework.
With amendment 40, the Opposition seek to remove the application of the economic interest test before the imposition of provisional anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures. It would mean that the test is considered only at the final stage of imposing definitive measures. Given that provisional measures can have profound wider economic impacts, we believe that the test should be met before they can be imposed, just as before definitive measures. That ensures consistency between the two stages of the investigation, and operates in the same way as the existing Union interest test in the EU’s regime, thus providing continuity for UK businesses.
I understand the concerns of UK industry that the inclusion of the test at the provisional stage could delay the application of measures. However, that will not necessarily be the case. In practice, the TRA will have the ability to gather evidence on the economic impacts of applying or not applying measures in parallel, rather than sequentially, to other aspects of the investigation.
Graham Stuart
What I can confirm is that our system will be much more transparent. It will allow those who apply to it, or might be affected by it, to be clearer about how the system will work. That form of transparency is one of the fundamental principles on which we have built this structure.
Peter Dowd
That was a valiant attempt to show why the Government are taking a hammer to crack a nut.
Peter Dowd
I am not privy to the details, but I believe there will most probably be more tests. I think those tests will be more bureaucratic and will lead to inflexibility. By the time we get around to designing them, they will be more complicated than they need to be. The Government’s position, as I have indicated, is to take a hammer to crack a nut. They are not fleet of foot enough on this issue. I have tried to lay out where we think the Government should give careful consideration. Though I hear what the Minister says, and his concern about transparency, this is so transparent that we can see through the Bill. That is the problem: there is nothing there. Though the Minister has tried to reassure us, I think he has missed the point. The Government are going into potentially dangerous territory and poking their fingers into all sorts of places that they do not necessarily need to poke into. We will therefore push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Peter Dowd
I beg to move amendment 41, in schedule 4, page 66, line 1, leave out from “dumping” to “in” in line 2.
This amendment removes the reference to the amount of the subsidy as an upper limit on the anti-dumping amount in the recommendation under paragraph 14.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 42, in schedule 4, page 66, line 6, leave out from “dumping” to end of line 7.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 41.
Amendment 43, in schedule 4, page 66, line 7, at end insert—
‘(3A) The provisions of sub-paragraph (3) are subject to the provisions of sub-paragraphs (3B) and (3C).
(3B) If the TRA finds that the dumping has been fully or partially caused by market distortions affecting the prices of raw materials or other industrial inputs paid by the exporting producers, the estimated anti-dumping amount shall be the margin of dumping as determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (3)(a).
(3C) If the TRA finds that there is an inadequate level of social and environmental protection in the exporting country, the estimated anti-dumping amount shall be the margin of dumping as determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (3)(a).”
This amendment provides for the anti-dumping amount to be the margin of dumping in certain specified circumstances.
Amendment 44, in schedule 4, page 66, line 8, leave out paragraph (4) and insert—
‘(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b) the TRA shall, in determining the amount which it is satisfied would be adequate to remove the injury described in that provision, take account of all elements of the material injury being caused to the UK industry, including, but not limited to, the impact of reduced sales volumes, price suppression and curtailment of investment.
(4A) Regulations may make further provision for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4).”
This amendment makes provision on the face of the Bill for the main factors to be considered in determining the amount for the purposes of paragraph 14(3)(b).
Amendment 49, in schedule 4, page 69, line 18, leave out from “dumping” to “in” in line 19.
This amendment removes the reference to the amount of the subsidy as an upper limit on the anti-dumping amount in the recommendation under paragraph 18.
Amendment 50, in schedule 4, page 69, line 22, leave out from “dumping” to end of line 23.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 51, in schedule 4, page 69, line 23, at end insert—
‘(4A) The provisions of sub-paragraph (4) are subject to the provisions of sub-paragraphs (4B) and (4C).
(4B) If the TRA finds that the dumping has been fully or partially caused by market distortions affecting the prices of raw materials or other industrial inputs paid by the exporting producers, the anti-dumping amount shall be the margin of dumping as determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (4)(a).
(4C) If the TRA finds that there is an inadequate level of social and environmental protection in the exporting country, the estimated anti-dumping amount shall be the margin of dumping as determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (4)(a).”
This amendment provides for the anti-dumping amount to be the margin of dumping in certain specified circumstances.
Amendment 52, in schedule 4, page 69, line 24, leave out paragraph (5) and insert—
‘(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b) the TRA shall, in determining the amount which it is satisfied would be adequate to remove the injury described in that provision, take account of all elements of the material injury being caused to the UK industry, including, but not limited to, the impact of reduced sales volumes, price suppression and curtailment of investment.
(5A) Regulations may make further provision for the purposes of sub-paragraph (5).”
This amendment makes provision on the face of the Bill for the main factors to be considered in determining the amount for the purposes of paragraph 18(4)(b).
Peter Dowd
I thank the organisations that sent in further written evidence today; that was very helpful. The TUC, among others, gave us information that helps with the amendments. Amendments 41 to 44 and 49 to 52 concern the removal of a mandatory lesser duty rule for estimating the injury of state-sponsored dumping. This is a potentially contentious area, and we have to get the balance right. Schedule 4 rightly defines dumping as imported goods priced below their normal value, where “normal value” means the domestic price, or another value if that is appropriate. I touched on this earlier. This definition recognises that the injury margin of domestic prices here does not always reflect the actual injury to UK manufacturers when dealing with goods from distorted economies such as Russia or China.
UK manufacturers are rightly concerned about leaving the methodology for these specified cases to regulation created by the Treasury and/or the Secretary of State, with little parliamentary input. The Opposition’s amendments on the trade remedies and Trade Remedies Authority seek to address this concern and ensure that the methodology by which the TRA calculates the injury caused to manufacturers by dumping sufficiently protects UK manufacturing and industry. I refer hon. Members to the TUC document, which gives the examples of aluminium foil, aluminium road wheels, coated fire paper and continuous filament glass fibre production. One of the biggest concerns that UK manufacturers have with the trade remedies Bill is outlined in schedule 4—that is, the introduction of a mandatory lesser duty rule. That requires the calculation, in dumping investigations, of the level of injury to domestic industry, in addition to the level of dumping. The duties correspond to the lesser of the two indicators, which means that they might not necessarily properly reflect the damage to British industry. That is important in a whole range of areas. My hon. friend the Member for Scunthorpe referred to this in relation to steel; and we heard about ceramics. It is important that we get this right. In other words, it is relatively straightforward to calculate the cost of dumping, but less easy in relation to injury, with a full investigation, which may be an appropriate action. I think that Dr Cohen was pretty clear about that in her evidence.
As witnesses from key industries, including steel, ceramics and chemicals, pointed out last week, the best estimate of the distortion to trade is the dumping and subsidy margin. The creation of a mandatory lesser duty will result in lower duties that in some cases may not reflect the actual injury. It is labour-intensive for the investigating authority and does not reflect the full—
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill
Monday 16th July 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 16 July 2018 - (16 Jul 2018)
21:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:29 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 36 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 283 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—EU VAT area and pre-commencement requirements—
“(1) It shall be a negotiating objective of Her Majesty’s Government in negotiations on the matters specified in subsection (2) to maintain the United Kingdom’s participation in the EU VAT Area under the arrangements set out through the Union Customs Code and its delegated and implementing legislation.
(2) Those matters are—
(a) the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and
(b) a permanent agreement with the European Union for a period subsequent to the transitional period after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay a report before the House of Commons in accordance with either subsection (4) or subsection (5).
(4) A report under this subsection shall be to the effect that the negotiating objective specified in subsection (1) has been achieved.
(5) A report under this subsection shall be to the effect that the negotiating objective specified in subsection (1) has not been achieved.
(6) If a report is laid before the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (4), Part 3 of this Act shall cease to have effect on the day after that day.
(7) No regulations may be made for the commencement of provisions of Part 3 of this Act unless a report is laid before the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (5).”
This new clause establishes a negotiating objective to maintain the UK’s participation in the EU VAT Area and provides for Part 3 of the Act to expire if that objective is met.
New clause 3—Import tariffs under Part 1: restriction—
“(1) No power of the Treasury or of the Secretary of State to impose tariffs under or by virtue of the provisions specified in subsection (2) may be exercised in respect of goods originating from a country that is a Member State of the European Union.
(2) Those provisions are—
(a) section 8 (customs tariff),
(b) section 11 (quotas),
(c) section 13 (dumping of goods, etc),
(d) section 14 (agricultural goods), and
(e) section 15 (international disputes).”
This new clause prevents tariffs being imposed on goods originating from EU Member States.
New clause 4—Import tariffs under Part 1: pegging with EU tariffs—
“(1) In exercising the powers to impose or vary tariffs under or by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 to 15, it shall be the duty of the Treasury and the Secretary of State to secure that, so far as practicable, the level of those tariffs is the same as that imposed in respect of comparable goods imported into the European Union from third countries.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) the level of tariffs imposed in respect of comparable goods imported into the European Union shall be determined with reference to EU customs duties (within the meaning of that term given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 7), and
(b) “third countries” means any country other than the United Kingdom that is not a member of the EU Customs Union.”
This new clause requires tariffs set by the UK to be pegged to EU tariffs.
New clause 5—Regulatory alignment: VAT and excise—
“(1) In exercising the powers under Parts 3 and 4 of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Treasury to secure that, so far as practicable, there is regulatory alignment in respect of VAT and excise with the European Union.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “regulatory alignment” includes, for example—
(a) the administration of VAT and excise duties on the basis of the same regulatory approach as that required in respect of EU Member States,
(b) the setting of import VAT with regard to comparable taxation within the European Union, and
(c) the establishment of a duty deferment scheme comparable to that in operation while the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union.”
This new clause requires regulatory alignment with regard to VAT and excise between new UK arrangements and those within the EU or as a member of the EU.
New clause 6—Pre-commencement impact assessment of leaving the EU Customs Union—
“No Minister of the Crown may appoint a day for the commencement of any provision of this Act until a Minister of the Crown has laid before the House of Commons an impact assessment of—
(a) disapplying the EU’s Common External Tariff, and
(b) any changes to duties, quotas or associated customs processes made as a consequence of the UK leaving the European Union.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of any changes to existing cross-border taxation arrangements before any such changes are made.
New clause 7—Review of the impact of this Act on the UK economy—
“(1) Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the proposed customs regime to be implemented under this Act on—
(a) the economy of the United Kingdom,
(b) the different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England, and
(c) individual economic sectors.
(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must so far as practicable analyse the expected difference in outcomes between the proposed customs regime and continued participation in the EU Customs Union.
(3) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause requires the Treasury to publish an assessment on the economic impact of proposed customs regime and compare it to the economic impact of remaining in the EU Customs Union.
New clause 8—Review of the impact of this Act on the Northern Ireland—Ireland border—
“(1) Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish and lay before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the proposed customs regime to be implemented under this Act on Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must so far as practicable analyse the expected difference in outcomes between the proposed customs regime and continued participation in the EU Customs Union.
(3) The assessment must consider—
(a) the impact of the proposed customs regime on businesses that operate in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,
(b) what, if any, physical infrastructure will be required at the border crossings between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to enforce the proposed customs regime,
(c) if, and how, the proposed customs regime preserves the effects of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998, and
(d) what, if any, rules of the EU Customs Union are included in the proposed customs regime for the purposes of—
(i) promoting cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,
(ii) supporting the economy of the entire island of Ireland, and
(iii) preserving the effects of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998.”
This new clause requires the Treasury to assess the impact of the proposed customs regime on Northern Ireland and Ireland, especially on the all-island economy, border crossings, the Good Friday Agreement and future alignment with the EU Customs Union.
New clause 9—Parliamentary scrutiny of public notices—
“(1) Any provision made by a public notice under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.
(2) Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applies to this section as if all references in that Act to a statutory instrument subject to annulment were a reference to a public notice.”
This new clause allows the House of Commons to annul provisions made by public notice under this Act.
New clause 10—Review of free zones—
“(1) The Treasury shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, carry out a review of the exercise and prospective exercise of the relevant powers relating to free zones.
(2) The review under this section shall in particular consider—
(a) the economic effects of previous designations under the relevant powers relating to free zones,
(b) the operation of free zones in other Member States of the European Union,
(c) the effects of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union on the case for the designation of free zones (including the prospective effects of the storage procedure under Part 2 of Schedule 2 in relation to free zones), and
(d) the prospective designation of Teesport as a free zone.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.
(4) In this section “the relevant powers relating to free zones” means—
(a) the power of the Treasury to make an order designating any area in the United Kingdom as a special area for customs purposes under section 100A of CEMA 1979 (designation of free zones), and
(b) the powers of HMRC Commissioners under section 17 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (free zone regulations).”
This new clause requires a review to be undertaken of the past and possible future exercise of powers to designate free zones and related powers, including comparative information and an analysis of the impact on the case of withdrawal from the EU.
New clause 11—Preparedness for a customs union with the European Union—
“(1) It shall be one of the negotiating objectives of Her Majesty’s Government in negotiations on the matters specified in subsection (2) to create an agreement which allows the United Kingdom to secure tariff free access to the European Union including the potential to participate in a customs union with the European Union, following exit from the European Union.
(2) Those matters are—
(a) the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and
(b) a permanent agreement with the European Union for a period subsequent to the transitional period after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay a report before the House of Commons on the outcome of negotiations on each of the matters specified in subsection (2) in relation to the objective in subsection (1).
(4) A report under this section in relation to the matter specified in subsection (1)(a) shall include an account of—
(a) the extent to which the negotiating objective has been met,
(b) proposals for the commencement of provisions of Parts 1 and 2, and
(c) proposals for the modification of this Act in the exercise of powers under sections 31 or 54, or otherwise, in consequence of an agreement with the European Union.
(5) The provisions specified in section 55(1) come into force on the day after the day on which a report under subsection (4) is laid before the House of Commons.
(6) A report under this section in relation to the matter specified in subsection (1)(b) shall include an account of—
(a) the extent to which the negotiating objective has been met, and
(b) proposals for the modification of this Act in the exercise of powers under sections 31 or 54, or otherwise, in consequence of an agreement with the European Union.”
This new clause establishes a negotiating objective to secure an agreement which allows the United Kingdom to have tariff free access to the European Union including the potential to participate in a customs union with the European Union, following exit from the European Union, and makes associated provision about reporting and implementation and modification of the Bill as enacted.
New clause 12—Implementation of a customs union with the EU as a negotiating objective—
“(1) It shall be a negotiating objective of Her Majesty’s Government in negotiations on the matters specified in subsection (2) to secure the United Kingdom’s participation in a customs union with the European Union.
(2) Those matters are—
(a) the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and
(b) a permanent agreement with the European Union for a period subsequent to the transitional period after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay a report before the House of Commons in accordance with either subsection (4) or subsection (5).
(4) A report under this subsection shall be to the effect that the negotiating objective specified in subsection (1) has been achieved.
(5) A report under this subsection shall be to the effect that the negotiating objective specified in subsection (1) has not been achieved.
(6) If a report is laid before the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (4), Parts 1 and 2 of this Act shall cease to have effect on the day after that day.
(7) If a report is laid before the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (5), the provisions specified in section 55(1) come into force on the day after that day.
(8) No regulations may be made under section 55(2) for the purpose of appointing a day for the coming into force of paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 (replacement of EU customs duties) unless a report has been laid before the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (5).”
This new clause establishes a negotiating objective to secure the United Kingdom’s participation in a customs union with the European Union, provides for Parts 1 and 2 of the Act to expire if that objective is met and makes the ending of the retention of EU customs duties conditional upon a report stating that the objective has not been met.
New clause 13—Enhanced parliamentary procedure—
“(1) No regulations to which this section applies may be made except in accordance with the steps set out in this section.
(2) This section applies to—
(a) the first regulations to be made under—
(i) section 8 (the customs tariff);
(ii) section 9 (preferential rates under arrangements) in respect of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom; and
(iii) section 39 (charge to export duty);
(b) any other regulations to be made under section 8 the effect of which is an increase in the amount of import duty payable under the customs tariff in a standard case (within the meaning of that section);
(c) any other regulations under section 9 the effect of which is an increase in the amount of import duty applicable to any goods set by any regulations to which paragraph (a)(ii) applies;
(d) any other regulations under section 39 the effect of which is an increase in the amount of export duty payable;
(e) any regulations under—
(i) section 10(1) (preferential rates given unilaterally);
(ii) section 11(1) (quotes);
(iii) section 13(5) (dumping of goods, foreign subsidies and increases in imports);
(iv) section 14(1) (increases in imports or changes in price of agricultural goods); and
(v) section 15(1) (international disputes).
(3) The first step is that a Minister of the Crown must lay before the House of Commons—
(a) a draft of the regulations that it is proposed be made;
(b) in respect of regulations to be made under section 9 to which this section applies, a statement of the terms of the arrangements made with the government of the country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
(c) in respect of regulations to be made under section 10(1), a statement on the matters specified in subsection (4);
(d) in respect of regulations to be made under section 11(1), a statement on the matters specified in subsection (5);
(e) in respect of regulations to be made under section 14(1), a statement of the reasons for proposing to make the regulations;
(f) in respect of draft regulations to be under section 15(1)—
(i) a statement of the dispute or other issue that has arisen; and
(ii) an account of the reasons why the Secretary of State considers that the condition in section 15(1)(b) has been met.
(4) The matters referred to in subsection (3)(c) are—
(a) the proposed application and non-application of the scheme to each country listed in Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 3;
(b) any proposed conditions for the application of the lower rates or nil rate; and
(c) any proposed provisions about the variation, suspension and withdrawal of the application of the lower rates or nil rate.
(5) The matters referred to in subsection (3)(d) are—
(a) in respect of any case where the condition in section 11(2)(a) is met, a statement of the terms of the arrangements made with the government of the country or territory outside the United Kingdom; and
(b) in respect of any case where the condition in section 11(2)(b) is met, a statement of the reasons why the Treasury consider it is appropriate for the goods concerned to be subject to a quota.
(6) The second step is that a Minister of the Crown must make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons setting out, in respect of proposed regulations of which a draft has been laid in accordance with subsection (3)—
(a) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 8 to which this section applies—
(i) the rate of import duty applicable to goods falling within a code given in regulations previously made under section 8 or in the draft of the regulations laid in accordance with subsection (3);
(ii) anything of a kind mentioned in section 8(3)(a) or (b) by reference to which the amount of any import duty applicable to any goods is proposed to be determined; and
(iii) the meaning of any relevant expression used in the motion.
(b) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 9 to which this section applies, the rate of import duty applicable to goods, or any description of goods, originating from the country or territory.
(c) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 11(1)—
(i) the amount of import duty proposed to be applicable to any goods that are or are proposed to be subject to a quota; and
(ii) the factors by reference to which a quota is to be determined.
(d) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 10(1)—
(i) each country to which the proposed regulations apply;
(ii) the proposed conditions for the application of the lower rates or nil rate, and
(iii) the proposed provisions about the variation, suspension and withdrawal of the application of the lower rates or nil rate.
(e) in respect of draft regulations to be under section 13(5), the amount of import duty proposed to be applicable to any goods that are or are proposed to be subject to a quota.
(f) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 14(1)—
(i) the proposed additional amount of import duty;
(ii) the proposed period for the purposes of section 14(1)(a); and
(iii) the proposed trigger price for the purposes of section 14(1)(b).
(g) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 15(1), the proposed variation of import duty.
(h) in respect of draft regulations to be made under section 39 to which this section applies—
(i) the rate of export duty applicable to goods specified in the resolution;
(ii) any proposed export tariff (within the meaning given in section 39(3)(a)); and
(iii) any measure of quantity or size by reference to which it is proposed that the duty be charged.
(7) The third step is that the House of Commons passes a resolution arising from the motion made in the form specified in subsection (6) (whether in the form of that motion or as amended).
(8) The fourth step is that the regulations that may then be made must, in respect of any matters specified in the paragraph of subsection (6) that relate to the section under which the draft regulations are to be made, give effect to the terms of the resolution referred to in subsection (7).”
This new clause applies an enhanced parliamentary procedure to several of the provisions in the Bill, requiring that the House of Commons pass an amendable resolution authorising (i) the rate of import duty on particular goods; (ii) the key provisions of regulations that set quotas; (ii) the key provisions of regulations that lower import duties for eligible developing countries; (iii) the quota provisions of regulations to give effect to recommendations of the TRA; (iv) regulations setting additional import duty on agricultural goods; (v) regulations varying import duty as a result of an international dispute, and (vi) the rate of export duty on particular goods.
New clause 14—Additional regulations requiring the affirmative procedure—
“(1) No regulations to which this section applies may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(2) This section applies to regulations under—
(a) section 10(4)(a) (meaning of “arms and ammunition”);
(b) section 12 (tariff suspension);
(c) section 19 (reliefs);
(d) section 22 (authorized economic operators);
(e) section 30 (general provision for the purposes of import duty);
(f) section 42 (EU law relating to VAT);
(g) paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 (power to add or remove countries from lists in that Schedule);
(h) paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4 (definitions and determinations in relation to goods being “dumped”);
(i) paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 (determination of certain matters relating to “injury” to a UK industry);
(j) paragraph 26(1) of Schedule 4 (provision for suspension of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedies);
(k) paragraph (1)(2)(c) of Schedule 5 (defining a “significant” increase);
(l) paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 (definitions relating to “serious injury” to a UK industry);
(m) paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 5 (provision for suspension of safeguarding remedies)
and regulations making provision on the matters in section 11(3)(c).”
This new clause applies the affirmative resolution procedure to a number of powers in the Bill.
New clause 16—Additional regulations requiring the consent of the Scottish Parliament—
“(1) No regulations to which this section applies may be made unless a draft has been given consent by the Scottish Parliament.
(2) This section applies to regulations under—
(a) section 10(4)(a) (meaning of “arms and ammunition”);
(b) section 12 (tariff suspension);
(c) section 19 (reliefs);
(d) section 22 (authorized economic operators);
(e) section 30 (general provision for the purposes of import duty);
(f) section 42 (EU law relating to VAT);
(g) paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 (power to add or remove countries from lists in that Schedule);
(h) paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4 (definitions and determinations in relation to goods being “dumped”);
(i) paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 (determination of certain matters relating to “injury” to a UK industry);
(j) paragraph 26(1) of Schedule 4 (provision for suspension of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedies);
(k) paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 5 (defining a “significant” increase);
(l) paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 (definitions relating to “serious injury” to a UK industry);
(m) paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 5 (provision for suspension of safeguarding remedies) and regulations making provision on the matters in section 11(3)(c).
(n) section 14 (Increases in imports or changes in price of agricultural goods).”
This new clause would require Scottish Parliament consent to implement a number of powers in the Bill.
New clause 18—Tariffs not to differ from the European Union until House of Commons authority given—
“(1) Unless and until the House of Commons has passed a resolution in the terms specified in subsection (3), subsection (2) shall apply.
(2) Unless and until the resolution referred to in subsection (1) is passed—
(a) in exercising the powers to impose or vary tariffs under or by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 to 15, it shall be the duty of the Treasury and the Secretary of State to secure that, so far as practicable, the level of those tariffs is the same as that imposed in respect of comparable goods imported into the European Union from third countries, and
(b) no power of the Treasury or of the Secretary of State to impose tariffs under or by virtue of the provisions specified in subsection (5) may be exercised in respect of goods originating from a country that is a Member State of the European Union.
(3) The form of the resolution referred to in subsection (1) is “That this House authorises Her Majesty’s Government to set tariffs that differ from those of the European Union”.
(4) After the House of Commons has passed a resolution in the terms specified in subsection (3), subsection (2) shall no longer apply.
(5) The provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b) are—
(a) section 8 (customs tariff),
(b) section 11 (quotas),
(c) section 13 (dumping of goods, etc),
(d) section 14 (agricultural goods), and
(e) section 15 (international disputes).
(6) For the purposes of this section—
(a) the level of tariffs imposed in respect of comparable goods imported into the European Union shall be determined with reference to EU customs duties (within the meaning of that term given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 7), and
(b) “third countries” means any country other than the United Kingdom that is not a member of the EU Customs Union.”
This new clause would require a meaningful vote before the UK Government could introduce tariffs different to those of the EU.
New clause 20—Application to Scotland of arrangements for Northern Ireland—
“(1) No power of the Treasury or of the Secretary of State exercisable under the provisions specified in subsection (2) shall make customs arrangements in respect to goods that originated from a country that is a Member State of the European Union entering Northern Ireland unless one or both of the conditions in subsection (3) is met.
(2) Those provisions are—
(a) section 8 (customs tariff),
(b) section 11 (quotas),
(c) section 13 (dumping of goods, etc),
(d) section 14 (agricultural goods), and
(e) section 15 (international disputes).
(3) The conditions are that—
(a) the customs arrangements that apply to Northern Ireland also apply to Scotland, or
(b) the Scottish Ministers consent to the arrangements being made.”
This new clause prevents Northern Ireland being given a special status not available to Scotland, subject to approval by Scottish Ministers.
New clause 22—Review of the impact of this Act on the Northern Ireland—Ireland border (No. 2)—
“(1) Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish and lay before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact on—
(a) Northern Ireland, and
(b) the Republic of Ireland,
of the proposed customs regime to be implemented under this Act.
(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must so far as practicable analyse the expected difference in outcomes between the proposed customs regime and continued participation in the EU Customs Union.
(3) The assessment must consider—
(a) the impact of the proposed customs regime on businesses that operate in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,
(b) what, if any, physical infrastructure will be required at the border crossings between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to enforce the proposed customs regime,
(c) if, and how, the proposed customs regime preserves the effects of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998, and
(d) what, if any, rules of the EU Customs Union are included in the proposed customs regime for the purposes of—
(i) promoting cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,
(ii) supporting the economy of the entire island of Ireland, and
(iii) preserving the effects of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998.”
This new clause requires the Treasury to assess the impact of the proposed customs regime on Northern Ireland and Ireland, especially on the all-island economy, border crossings, the Good Friday Agreement and future alignment with the EU Customs Union.
New clause 23—Additional regulations requiring the consent of the Scottish Ministers—
“(1) No regulations to which this section applies may be made unless a draft has been given consent by the Scottish Ministers.
(2) This section applies to regulations under—
(a) section 10(4)(a) (meaning of “arms and ammunition”);
(b) section 12 (tariff suspension);
(c) section 19 (reliefs);
(d) section 22 (authorized economic operators);
(e) section 30 (general provision for the purposes of import duty);
(f) section 42 (EU law relating to VAT);
(g) paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 (power to add or remove countries from lists in that Schedule);
(h) paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4 (definitions and determinations in relation to goods being “dumped”);
(i) paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 (determination of certain matters relating to “injury” to a UK industry);
(j) paragraph 26(1) of Schedule 4 (provision for suspension of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedies);
(k) paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 5 (defining a “significant” increase);
(l) paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 (definitions relating to “serious injury” to a UK industry);
(m) paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 5 (provision for suspension of safeguarding remedies) and regulations making provision on the matters in section 11(3)(c);
(n) section 14 (increases in imports or changes in price of agricultural goods).”
This new clause would require Scottish Government approval to implement a number of powers in the Bill.
New clause 25—Review of the impact of this Act on the Scottish economy—
“(1) Within six months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish and lay before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the proposed customs regime to be implemented under this Act on the Scottish economy.
(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must so far as practicable analyse the expected difference in outcomes between the proposed customs regime and continued participation in the EU Customs Union.
(3) The assessment must consider—
(a) the impact of the proposed customs regime on businesses that operate in Scotland,
(b) the impact on public finances in Scotland.”
This new clause requires the Treasury to assess the impact of the proposed customs regime on Scotland.
New clause 26—Import tariffs under Part 1: making tariffs on the EU less or equal to those on third countries—
“(1) In exercising the powers to impose or vary rates of import duty under or by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 to 15, it shall be the duty of the Treasury and the Secretary of State to secure that, so far as practicable, the level of those rates of import duty in respect of goods imported from the European Union is no greater than those imposed on third countries.
(2) For the purposes of this section “third countries” means any country other than the United Kingdom that is not a member of the EU Customs Union.”
This new clause requires tariffs set by the UK on EU goods to be no greater than those imposed on any third countries.
New clause 27—Import tariffs under Part 1: preventing tariffs on goods from third countries being lower than those on comparable goods from the European Union—
“(1) In exercising the powers to impose or vary rates of import duty under or by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 to 15, it shall be the duty of the Treasury and the Secretary of State to secure that, so far as practicable, rates of import duty are applied in respect of goods imported from third countries are not set at a lower rate than the rate of import duty set by the European Union in respect of the same goods and countries.
(2) This section does not apply to—
(a) eligible developing countries, or
(b) least developed countries.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “third countries” means any country other than the United Kingdom that is not a member of the EU Customs Union;
(b) “eligible developing countries” and “least developed countries” means those countries defined as such in Schedule 3.”
This new clause would prevent tariffs on goods from third countries being lower than those on comparable goods from the European Union.
New clause 28—Import tariffs under Part 1: preventing tariffs on third countries which may cause a dispute with the EU—
“(1) In exercising the powers to impose or vary rates of import duty under or by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 to 15, it shall be the duty of the Treasury and the Secretary of State to secure that, so far as practicable, rates of import duty are not applied in respect of goods imported from third countries which may jeopardise customs arrangements with the European Union or cause any dispute with the European Union.
(2) For the purposes of this section ‘third countries’ means any country other than the United Kingdom that is not a member of the EU Customs Union.”
This new clause would prevent a UK Government from entering into customs arrangements with third countries which would jeopardise customs arrangements with the European Union or cause any dispute with the European Union.
New clause 29—Import tariffs under Part 1: pegging with EU tariffs—
“(1) In exercising the powers to impose or vary rates of import duty under or by virtue of the provisions of sections 8 to 15, it shall be the duty of the Treasury and the Secretary of State to secure that, so far as practicable, rates of import duty are the same as those imposed in respect of comparable goods imported into the European Union from third countries.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) the rates of import duty imposed in respect of comparable goods imported into the European Union shall be determined with reference to EU customs duties (within the meaning of that term given by paragraph 1 of Schedule 7), and
(b) ‘third countries’ means any country other than the United Kingdom that is not a member of the EU Customs Union.”
This new clause requires tariffs set by the UK to be pegged to EU tariffs.
New clause 30—Super-affirmative resolution procedure—
“(1) For the purposes of this Act, the ‘super-affirmative resolution procedure’ in relation to the making of regulations to which this section applies is as follows.
(2) If a Minister considers it necessary to proceed with the making of regulations to which this section applies, the Minister shall lay before the House of Commons—
(a) draft regulations,
(b) an explanatory document under subsection (3), and
(c) a declaration under subsection (4).
(3) The explanatory document must—
(a) introduce and explain any amendments made to retained EU law by each proposed regulation, and
(b) set out the reason why each such amendment is necessary (or, in the case where the Minister is unable to make a statement of necessity under subsection (4)(a), the reason why each such amendment is nevertheless considered appropriate).
(4) The declaration under subsection (2)(c) must either—
(a) state that, in the Minister’s view, the provisions of the draft regulations do not exceed what is necessary to prevent, remedy or mitigate any deficiency in retained EU law arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU (a “statement of necessity”), or
(b) include a statement to the effect that although the Minister is unable to make a statement of necessity the Government nevertheless proposes to exercise the power to make the regulations in the form of the draft.
(5) Subject as follows, if after the expiry of the 21-day period a committee of the House of Commons appointed to consider draft regulations under this section has not reported to the House of Commons a resolution in respect of the draft regulations laid under section 32(2A) or 42(6), the Minister may proceed to make a statutory instrument in the form of the draft regulations.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.
(7) The procedure in subsection (8) to (15) shall apply to the proposal for the draft regulations instead of the procedure in subsection (5) if—
(a) the House of Commons so resolves within the 21-day period,
(b) the committee appointed to consider draft regulations under this section so recommends within the 21-day period and the House of Commons does not by resolution reject the recommendation within that period, or
(c) the draft regulations contain provision to—
(i) establish a public authority in the United Kingdom,
(ii) provide for any function of an EU entity or public authority in a member State to be exercisable instead by a public authority in the United Kingdom established by regulations under sections 42, 43 or schedule 8,
(iii) provides for any function of an EU entity or public authority in a member State of making an instrument of a legislative character to be exercisable instead by a public authority in the United Kingdom,
(iv) imposes, or otherwise relates to, a fee in respect of a function exercisable by a public authority in the United Kingdom,
(v) creates, or widens the scope of, a criminal offence, or
(vi) creates or amends a power to legislate.
(8) The Minister must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of the House of Commons, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the draft regulations, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.
(9) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister wishes to make regulations in the terms of the draft, the Minister must lay before the House of Commons a statement—
(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (8)(a), and
(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
(10) The Minister may after the laying of such a statement make regulations in the terms of the draft if it is approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(11) However, a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the draft regulations may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (9) and before the draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (10), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft regulations.
(12) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of the House of Commons under subsection (11) in relation to draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft regulations in the House of Commons under subsection (10) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of the House of Commons.
(13) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister wishes to make regulations consisting of a version of the draft regulations with material changes, the Minister must lay before Parliament—
(a) revised draft regulations, and
(b) a statement giving details of—
(i) any representations made under subsection (8)(a); and
(ii) the revisions proposed.
(14) The Minister may after laying revised draft regulations and a statement under subsection (9) make regulations in the terms of the revised draft if it is approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(15) However, a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the revised draft regulations may, at any time after the revised draft regulations are laid under subsection (12) and before it is approved by the House of Commons under subsection (13), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations.
(16) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of the House of Commons under subsection (14) in relation to revised draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations in the House of Commons under subsection (13) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of the House of Commons.
(17) In this section, references to the ‘21-day’ and ‘60-day’ periods in relation to any draft regulations are to the periods of 21 and 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before Parliament.”
This new clause applies an amended version of the super-affirmative resolution procedure to certain powers to make regulations under Schedules 4 and 5, and Clause 42.
New clause 31—VAT deferral scheme—
“(1) This section applies if it appears to the Secretary of State that the United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union taxation and customs union.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations introduce a domestic deferral scheme for UK importers.
(3) In designing a scheme under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must consult with whichever relevant stakeholders deemed by the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may be made only if a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons.”
This new clause ensures that in the event that the UK is no longer a member of the EU VAT area, the Secretary of State must by draft affirmative regulation introduce a VAT deferral scheme.
New clause 32—Rules of origin—
“(1) Where the exigencies of trade so require, a document proving origin may be issued in the UK in accordance with the rules of origin in force in the country or territory of destination or any other method identifying the country where the goods were wholly obtained or underwent their last substantial transformation. The Secretary of State may by regulations specify—
(a) the bodies that certificate origin for the purposes of a certificate under subsection (1),
(b) the specifications of the certificate, and
(c) any other relevant factor.”
This new clause would allow a document proving origin to be issued in the UK and would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the bodies that can issue a certificate and the specifications of a certificate as well as other relevant factors.
New clause 33—Additional regulations requiring the affirmative procedure (No. 2)—
“(1) No regulations to which this section applies may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(2) This section applies to regulations under—
(a) section 8(1) (the customs tariff);
(b) section 14(1) (agricultural goods);
(c) section 19(1) (reliefs);
(d) section 22(1) (authorised economic operators);
(e) section 30 (general provision for the purposes of import duty);
(f) section 39(1) (export duties);
(g) section 42(5) (exclusion from principal VAT directive);
(h) section 47(2) (exclusion from or modification of EU law relating to excise duty).”
This new clause applies the affirmative resolution procedure to a number of powers in the Bill.
New clause 34—Exclusion from tariffs for land border—
“Upon the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the United Kingdom shall not charge any customs duty or impose any quotas on goods entering the United Kingdom across the land border between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.”
New clause 35—Exclusion from tariffs for goods imported from the Republic of Ireland—
“Part 1 of this Act shall not apply to the import of any good into the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland.”
New clause 36—Prohibition on collection of certain taxes or duties on behalf of territory without reciprocity—
“(1) Subject to subsection (2), it shall be unlawful for HMRC to account for any duty of customs or VAT or excise duty collected by HMRC to the Government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if the Treasury declare by Order that arrangements have been entered into by Her Majesty’s Government and that government under which that government will account to HMRC for those duties and taxes collected in that country on a reciprocal basis.”
New clause 37—Single United Kingdom customs territory—
“(1) It shall be unlawful for Her Majesty‘s Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain.
(2) For the purposes of this section “customs territory” shall have the same meaning as in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1947, as amended.”
Amendment 26, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert
“or goods coming from the EEA”.
This amendment seeks to remove the Bill’s provisions to grant the UK Government the ability to impose customs on EEA goods.
Amendment 68, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert
“or goods entering the United Kingdom across the land border between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom”.
Amendment 69, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert
“or goods imported into the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland.”
Government amendment 74.
Amendment 71, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(e) the interests of producers in the United Kingdom,
(f) the desirability of maintaining United Kingdom standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection.”
This amendment would require the Treasury, when considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods, to have regard to the interests of UK producers (e.g. farmers) and to the desirability of ensuring that UK standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection are not undermined by imports produced to lower standards.
Amendment 119, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(e) the impacts on sustainable development.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to Government obligations to sustainable development in considering the rate of import duty.
Government amendment 84.
Amendment 21, in clause 13, page 9, line 18, at end insert—
“(4A) Subsection (4B) applies where the TRA or the Secretary of State is considering whether the application of a remedy, or the acceptance of a recommendation to do so—
(a) is in the public interest, or
(b) meets either of the economic interest tests described in paragraph 25 of Schedule 4 or paragraph 21 of Schedule 5.
(4B) In making a consideration to which this subsection applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Schedules 4 and 5, the TRA or the Secretary of State must give special consideration to the need to eliminate the trade distorting effect of injurious dumping and to restore effective competition, and must presume the application of a remedy or the acceptance of a recommendation to do so to be in the public interest and to have met the economic interest test unless this special consideration is significantly outweighed.”
This amendment ensures that there is a presumption that if dumping is found, a remedial action will be taken.
Amendment 54, in clause 15, page 10, line 18, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons an annual report on the exercise of the powers under this section including information on—
(a) the relevant international law authorising the exercise of the powers in each case, and
(b) the matters in dispute or issues arising in each case.”
This amendment requires the Government to report on the circumstances of, and international law basis for, each variation of tariffs as a result of a trade dispute.
Amendment 55, in clause 22, page 14, line 36, at end insert—
“(4) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the proposed exercise of the power of the HMRC Commissioners to make regulations under subsection (1), including in particular—
(a) the proposed criteria to be applied in determining whether or not any person should be an authorised economic operator,
(b) an assessment of the structure of the authorised economic operator system in Germany, Austria and such other countries as the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers relevant,
(c) the proposed differences between the structure that is proposed to be established by the first exercise of the power to make regulations under subsection (1) and each of those structures described in accordance with paragraph (b),
(d) the level of proposed resources to be allocated by the HMRC Commissioners for the authorisation of new authorised economic operators, and
(e) the target timetable for the authorisation of—
(i) new authorised economic operators in each class, and
(ii) authorised economic operator certification renewals in each class.”
This amendment requires the Government to report on the proposed operation of the powers of the HMRC under Clause 22, including comparative information.
Amendment 33, in clause 25, page 17, line 2, leave out “Data Protection Act 1998” and insert “data protection legislation”.
This amendment and Amendment 34 seeks to provide that the powers of disclosure cannot be exercised in breach of the updated data protection framework to be enshrined in the Data Protection Act 2018.
Amendment 34, in clause 25, page 17, line 4, at end insert—
“(8) In this section, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018.”
Amendment 70, page 18, line 11, leave out clause 31.
Amendment 72, in clause 31, page 18, line 34, at end insert—
“(4A) In the case of a customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union, Her Majesty may not make a declaration by Order In Council under subsection (4) unless the arrangements have been approved by an Act of Parliament.”
This amendment provides that the delegated powers under this clause may not be exercised until a proposed customs union with the European Union has been approved by a separate Act of Parliament.
Amendment 8, page 18, line 38, at beginning insert “subject to subsection (8)”.
This amendment paves the way for Amendment 9.
Amendment 9, page 19, line 10, at end insert—
“(8) When the power under subsection (4) has been exercised in respect of a customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the powers in subsections (4) and (5) may not be exercised so as to—
(a) provide that that customs union shall cease to have effect, or
(b) modify or disapply provision made by or under any other Act in a way that provides that that customs union shall cease to have effect.”
This amendment would prevent the delegated powers under Clause 31 being used to end a customs union once the transition period has finished. It provides that the delegated powers under Clause 31, once exercised in relation to a customs union with the EU, cannot be exercised to provide for departure from such a union.
Amendment 56, in clause 32, page 19, line 14, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
This amendment is consequential on NC33.
Government amendment 75.
Amendment 35, in clause 32, page 19, line 18, at end insert—
“(c) regulations under paragraph 4(2), 9(3) or 14(4) of Schedule 4.”
This amendment provides for regulations made under certain provisions of Schedule 4 (regarding dumping of goods or foreign subsidies causing injury to UK industry) to be subject to the made affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure.
Amendment 36, page 19, line 18, at end insert—
“(c) regulations under paragraph 1(2), 3(2), 4(2) or 5 of Schedule 5.”
This amendment provides for regulations made under certain provisions of Schedule 5 (regarding an increase in imports causing serious injury to UK producers) to be subject to the made affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure.
Government amendment 76.
Amendment 37, page 19, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) Section (Super-affirmative resolution procedure) applies to regulations under paragraph 1(3), 3(5), 5(2), or 6(2) of Schedule 4.”
This amendment provides for regulations made under certain provisions of Schedule 4 (regarding dumping of goods or foreign subsidies causing injury to UK industry) to be subject to the superaffirmative resolution procedure, as defined in NC12.
Amendment 38, page 19, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) Section (Super-affirmative resolution procedure) applies to regulations under paragraph 2(2) or 2(3) of Schedule 5.”
This amendment provides for regulations made under certain provisions of Schedule 5 (regarding an increase in imports causing serious injury to UK producers) to be subject to the superaffirmative resolution procedure, as defined in NC12.
Amendment 57, page 19, line 32, leave out “subsection (2)” and insert
“section (Additional regulations requiring the affirmative procedure (Amendment 2))”.
This amendment is consequential on NC33.
Amendment 39, page 19, line 32, after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 38.
Amendment 40, page 27, line 5, after second “to”, insert “number”.
This amendment clarifies that goods may be defined for the purposes of the export tariff simply by reference to their number.
Government amendment 77.
Amendment 41, in clause 39, page 27, line 12, at end insert—
“(aa) the interests of manufacturers in the United Kingdom,”.
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the interests of manufacturers in considering the rate of export duty.
Amendment 42, page 27, line 17, at end insert “and
(e) the public interest.”
Amendment 120, page 27, line 17, at end insert “and
(e) the impacts on sustainable development.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to Government obligations towards sustainable development in considering the rate of export duty.
Amendment 58, in clause 40, page 27, line 35, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
This amendment is consequential on NC33.
Amendment 59, page 28, line 7, leave out “subsection (2)” and insert
“section (Additional regulations requiring the affirmative procedure (Amendment 2))”.
This amendment is consequential on NC33.
Amendment 43, in clause 42, page 29, line 23, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment would be to remove from the Bill the provision that retained EU law on VAT should not have effect, despite forming part of UK law as a result of Clause 3 of the European.
Amendment 44, page 29, line 44, leave out from “regulation” to end of line 45.
The effect of this amendment would be to ensure that the UK Government does not exclude aspects of the EU’s principal VAT Directive that remain relevant by delegated legislation.
Government amendment 78.
Amendment 45, page 30, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) Section (Super-affirmative resolution procedure) applies to regulations made under this section.”
This amendment applies the super-affirmative resolution procedure, described in NC12, to regulations made under this section.
Amendment 60, page 30, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment is consequential on NC33.
Government amendment 79.
Amendment 62, page 30, line 12, at end insert—
“(9) This section shall, subject to subsection (10), cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(10) The Treasury may by regulations provide that this section shall continue in force for an additional period of up to three years from the end of the period specified in subsection (9).
(11) The power to make regulations under subsection (10) may only be exercised once.
(12) No regulations may be made under subsection (10) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment sunsets the provisions of Clause 42.
Amendment 63, in clause 45, page 31, line 25, at end insert—
“(5) This section shall, subject to subsection (6), cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) The Treasury may by regulations provide that this section shall continue in force for an additional period of up to three years from the end of the period specified in subsection (5).
(7) The power to make regulations under subsection (7) may only be exercised once.
(8) No regulations may be made under subsection (7) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment sunsets the provisions of Clause 45.
Government amendment 80.
Amendment 64, in clause 47, page 33, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) This section shall, subject to subsection (6), cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) The Treasury may by regulations provide that this section shall continue in force for an additional period of up to three years from the end of the period specified in subsection (5).
(7) The power to make regulations under subsection (7) may only be exercised once.
(8) No regulations may be made under subsection (7) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment sunsets the provisions of Clause 47.
Government amendment 81.
Amendment 22, in clause 48, page 33, line 29, at end insert—
“(5A) No regulations may be made under section 47 unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.”
Government amendment 23.
Amendment 61, page 33, line 31, leave out “applies” and insert
“or section (Additional regulations requiring the affirmative procedure (Amendment 2)) apply”.
This amendment is consequential on NC33.
Amendment 46, in clause 51, page 34, line 39, leave out second “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment provides that the power to make regulations about VAT, customs duty and excise duty in consequence of UK withdrawal from the EU is only exercised when it is necessary to do so.
Government amendment 82.
Amendment 10, page 35, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment prevents regulations under Clause 51 from making any provision as might be made by an Act of Parliament.
Amendment 67, page 35, line 2, after “Act”, insert
“other than provision creating a delegated power”.
This amendment removes the power for regulations made under Clause 51 to create further delegated powers (tertiary legislation).
Amendment 47, page 35, line 4, at end insert—
“(c) may not be made after 29 March 2021.
‘(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the date in paragraph (1)(c) to ensure that the day specified is the day that any transition period related to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union comes to an end.
(2B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment inserts a sunset provision that disallows any regulations to be made under Clause 51 after 29 March 2021, while also allowing the Secretary of State to alter that date, by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, in the event that this is not the date on which any transition period following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union comes to an end.
Amendment 48, page 35, line 10, after “section” insert
“, apart from regulations under subsection (2A),”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 47.
Amendment 49, page 35, line 25, after “apply” insert
“, apart from regulations under subsection (2A),”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 47.
Amendment 65, page 35, line 38, at end insert—
“(10) This section shall, subject to subsection (11), cease to have effect at the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(11) The Treasury may by regulations provide that this section shall continue in force for an additional period of up to three years from the end of the period specified in subsection (10).
(12) The power to make regulations under subsection (11) may only be exercised once.
(13) No regulations may be made under subsection (11) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment sunsets the provisions of Clause 51.
Amendment 50, in clause 54, page 37, line 5, leave out second “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment ensures that regulations making consequential and transitional provision may only be made when necessary.
Amendment 51, page 37, line 14, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment ensures that regulations making consequential and transitional provision may only be made when necessary.
Amendment 2, in clause 55, in clause 55, page 38, line 15, leave out from “force” to end of line 16 and insert
“in accordance with the provisions of section (EU Customs Union and pre-commencement requirements) (7).”
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 13, page 38, line 15, leave out from “force” to end of line 16 and insert
“in accordance with the provisions of section (Preparedness for a customs union with the European Union) (5)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC11.
Amendment 20, page 38, line 15, leave out from “force” to end of line 16 and insert
“in accordance with the provisions of section (Implementation of a customs union with the EU as a negotiating objective) (7)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC12.
Amendment 5, page 38, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert—
“(a) section (Pre-commencement impact assessment of leaving the EU Customs Union), and”.
This amendment is consequential on NC6.
Amendment 52, page 38, line 17, after “(2)”, insert “and (2A)”.
This amendment paves the way for Amendment 53.
Amendment 6, page 38, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment is consequential on NC6.
Amendment 3, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) No regulations may be made for the purpose of appointing a day for the coming into force of paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 (replacement of EU customs duties) unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires regulations commencing paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 4, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) No regulations may be made for the purpose of appointing a day for the coming into force of any provision in Part 3 (amending or superseding EU law relating to VAT) unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires regulations commencing provisions in Part 3 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 28, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made until the Secretary of State has consulted with the Scottish Ministers on the effect of deviating from EU levels of import duties in relation to—
(a) preferential rates,
(b) dumping of goods and foreign subsidies,
(c) international disputes,
(d) replacement of EU trade duties.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to consult Scottish Ministers before deviating from EU levels of import duties in relation to (a) preferential rates (b) dumping of goods and foreign subsidies (c) international disputes (d) replacement of EU trade duties.
Amendment 29, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) The following provisions come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may be regulations under this section appoint—
(a) section 41 (abolition of acquisition VAT and extension of import VAT),
(b) section 42 (EU law related to VAT), and
(c) section 43 and Schedule 8 (VAT amendment connected with withdrawal from EU).
(2B) Regulations under subsection (2A) may not be made until the Secretary of State has consulted with the Scottish Ministers on—
(a) the effect of leaving the EU VAT area on the lawful importation of goods into the United Kingdom from the European Union, and
(b) the effect of abolishing acquisition VAT and extending import VAT on the lawful importation of goods into the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to consult with Scottish Ministers before leaving the EU VAT Area before any system of upfront import VAT could be applied.
Amendment 31, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before the House of Commons an impact assessment that considers the effect on Scotland of deviating from EU levels of import duties in relation to
(a) preferential rates
(b) dumping of goods and foreign subsidies
(c) international disputes
(d) replacement of EU trade duties.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to make a Scottish impact assessment on the effects of deviating from EU levels of import duties in relation to (a) preferential rates (b) dumping of goods and foreign subsidies (c) international disputes (d) replacement of EU trade duties.
Amendment 53, page 38, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) The following provisions come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may be regulations under this section appoint—
(a) section 41 (abolition of acquisition VAT and extension of import VAT),
(b) section 42 (EU law related to VAT), and
(c) section 43 and Schedule 8 (VAT amendment connected with withdrawal from EU).
(2B) Regulations under subsection (2A) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before the House of Commons an impact assessment that considers—
(a) the effect of leaving the EU VAT area on the lawful importation of goods into the United Kingdom from the European Union, and
(b) the effect of abolishing acquisition VAT and extending import VAT on the lawful importation of goods into the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to make an impact assessment on the effects of leaving the EU VAT Area before any system of upfront import VAT could be applied to goods lawfully being imported into the UK from the European Union under EU Law.
Amendment 7, page 38, line 34, at end insert—
“(3A) Subsection (3) is subject to section (Pre-commencement impact assessment of leaving the EU Customs Union).”
This amendment is consequential on NC6.
Amendment 15, in schedule 4, page 58, line 2, after “consumption”, insert “by independent customers”.
This amendment requires the comparable price for the purposes of determining the normal value to be assessed with respect to consumption by independent customers.
Amendment 16, page 58, line 4, at end insert
“sub-paragraphs (2A) to (2L) and with”.
This amendment paves the way for Amendment 17.
Amendment 17, page 58, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) the following shall apply.
(2B) Where the exporter in the exporting country does not produce or does not sell the like goods, the normal value may be established on the basis of prices of other sellers or producers.
(2C) Prices between parties which appear to be associated or to have a compensatory arrangement with each other shall not be considered to be in the ordinary course of trade and shall not be used to establish the normal value unless it is determined that they are unaffected by the relationship.
(2D) Sales of the like goods intended for consumption in the exporting foreign country or territory shall normally be used to determine the normal value if such sales volume constitutes 5% or more of the sales volume exported to the United Kingdom, but a lower volume of sales may be used when, for example, the prices charged are considered representative for the market concerned.
(2E) When there are no or insufficient sales of the like goods in the ordinary course of trade, or where, because of the particular market situation, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be calculated on the basis of—
(a) the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits, or
(b) the export prices, in the ordinary course of trade, to an appropriate third country, provided that those prices are representative.
(2F) Sales of the like goods in the domestic market of the exporting foreign country or territory, or export sales to a third country, at prices below unit production costs plus selling, general and administrative costs shall be treated as not being in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price, and disregarded in determining the normal value, if it is determined that such sales are made within an extended period in substantial quantities, and are at prices which do not provide for the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
(2G) The amounts for selling, for general and administrative costs and for profits shall be based whenever possible on actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product by the exporter or producer under investigation.
(2H) When it is not possible to determine such amounts on the basis prescribed in sub-paragraph (2G), the amounts may be determined on the basis of—
(a) the weighted average of the actual amounts determined for other exporters or producers subject to investigation in respect of production and sales of the like product in the domestic market of the country of origin,
(b) the actual amounts applicable to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the same general category of products for the exporter or producer in question in the domestic market of the country of origin,
(c) any other reasonable method, provided that the amount for profit so established shall not exceed the profit normally realised by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin.
(2I) If the TRA determines that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence in that country of significant distortions, the normal value shall be constructed exclusively on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks, subject to the following provisions.
(2J) “Significant distortions” for this purpose means distortions which occur when reported prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials and energy, are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by substantial government intervention.
(2K) The TRA shall use the corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country with a similar level of economic development as the exporting country, provided the relevant data are readily available; and, where there is more than one such country, preference shall be given, where appropriate, to countries with an adequate level of social and environmental protection.
(2L) If such data are not available, the TRA may use any other evidence it deems appropriate for establishing a fair normal value, including undistorted international prices, costs, or benchmarks; or costs in the exporting country to the extent that they are positively established not to be distorted.”
This amendment makes further provision on the face of the Bill about how the normal value and the comparable price are to be determined in certain circumstances.
Amendment 18, page 58, line 6, at end insert—
“(2M) A fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value.
(2N) The comparison for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) shall be made at the same level of trade and in respect of sales made at, as closely as possible, the same time and with due account taken of other differences which affect price comparability.
(2O) Where the normal value and the export price as established are not on such a comparable basis, due allowance, in the form of adjustments, shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences in factors which are claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability.”
This amendment provides for fair comparison between the export price and the normal value.
Amendment 19, page 58, leave out lines 8 to 15 and insert—
“(a) to provide guidance with respect to the application of sub-paragraphs (2) to (2O).”
This amendment replaces the provision for definitions of key terms and the determination of related matters in individual cases with guidance about the application of the existing provisions and those contained in Amendments 17 and 18.
Amendment 25, page 58, line 12, and end insert—
“(v) ‘specified cases where it is not appropriate to use the price in paragraph 2(a)” including details on determining normal value in the presence of state distortions and non-market economy situations.’
This amendment would provide certainty by placing a marker in primary legislation to ensure that secondary legislation will clarify how, in anti-dumping investigations, the TRA will calculate the level of dumping for cases where the domestic prices of the alleged dumped imports cannot be used.
Government amendments 103 to 112.
Amendment 24, page 76, line 12, at end insert—
“25A (1) The TRA shall, in determining the amount which it is satisfied would be adequate to remove the injury described in paragraph 14(3)(b) or 18(4)(b), take account of all elements of the material injury being caused to the UK industry, including, but not limited to, the impact of reduced sales volumes, price suppression and curtailment of investment. Regulations may make further provision for this purpose.
(2) Regulations may make provision for specific circumstances in which paragraph 14(3)(b) or 18(4)(b) may not apply.”
Amendment 32, page 76, line 12, at end insert—
“25A (1) The TRA shall, in determining the amount which it is satisfied would be adequate to remove the injury described in paragraph 14(3)(b) or 18(4)(b), take account of all elements of the material injury being caused to UK industry, consumers and public administration and finances, including, but not limited to, the impact of reduced sales volumes, price suppression, curtailment of investment and availability of goods. Regulations may make further provision for this purpose.
(2) Regulations may make provision for specific circumstances in which paragraph 14(3)(b) or 18(4)(b) may not apply.
(3) No regulations may be made under sub-paragraph (2) unless—
(a) A Minister of the Crown has made a statement to the House of Commons that Her Majesty’s Government has negotiated with the relevant foreign government in order to remedy the activity causing injury to UK industry;
(b) lay before the House of Commons an impact assessment of implementing the regulations; and
(c) a draft of those regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.”
This amendment ensures the TRA considers a wider range of economic variables when considering policy responses to trade disputes and allows UK ministers to make associated regulations setting aside this wider set of considerations, so long as the UK Government has entered negotiations with the third country in question, provided an impact assessment on policy changes and that the policy change has been approved by a resolution in the House of Commons.
Government amendment 113.
Government amendments 85 to 96.
Government amendment 114.
Government amendments 97 and 98.
Government amendments 115 and 116.
Government amendment 99.
Government amendments 117 and 118.
Government amendments 100 to 102.
Amendment 11, in schedule 7, page 122, line 35, at end insert—
“88A (1) Section 100A (designation of free zones) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2), insert—
‘(2A) The Treasury must, no later than 2 years after the passing of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, exercise the power under subsection (1) to designate Teesport as a free zone.’
(3) After subsection (3), insert—
‘(3A) The first exercise of the power under subsection (1) in pursuance of the duty under subsection (2A) shall be for a period of no less than 5 years.’”
This amendment requires the Treasury to designate Teesport as a free zone for customs purposes.
Amendment 73, in schedule 8, page 135, leave out paragraph 14.
Government amendment 83.
Anna Soubry
I rise to speak in support of new clause 1 and new clause 12, and I shall also seek to speak briefly against new clause 36 and amendment 73. I hope that there will be Divisions, in the event of which I will vote against new clause 36 and amendment 73. It is my firm view that it is deeply regrettable that the Government have accepted the new clause and amendment, even though they clearly seek to undermine, if not wreck, the great advances made in the White Paper.
I shall speak, as I like to think I always do, with openness, frankness and honesty. When I became a Business Minister in David Cameron’s Government in 2015, I would be the first to admit that I did not know the finer details of how many of our manufacturing industries and businesses actually worked. I knew about supply chains and their value, but I could not claim, in any way, shape or form, to be particularly familiar with them. I relished my brief, though, so I was soon enmeshed in the manufacturing sector in particular. For example, I had responsibility for the automotive sector, aerospace and, of course, the steel industry, which many Members will remember was having a particularly difficult time. I soon became not quite an expert, but I certainly knew my brief. I understood how supply chains worked, the value of frictionless trade and what this thing called “just in time” was really all about. I had never actually seen it, though, until Friday, when I went to the Toyota factory at Burnaston, which is just outside Derby. I would make it compulsory for every single Member to go to Toyota—they could go to another car manufacturer in Swindon, or to Nissan in Sunderland, as I did shortly after the EU referendum—so that they could begin to understand what a supply chain is, why it relies on frictionless borders and what “just in time” means.
Let me give Members a bit of history about that remarkable Toyota plant just outside Derby. It is actually a legacy to Margaret Thatcher. It opened at the beginning of the 1990s. Some of us are old enough to remember those times and what had happened in many of our traditional manufacturing industries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who is sitting next to me, has a business in her constituency called Brush. It is a long-standing business that has provided good-quality jobs for generations. I had Siemens in my constituency. At one time, I had a number of miners who worked in local pits in north Nottinghamshire and in Derbyshire. In due course, those pits closed, as did Siemens.
When we talk about Brexit, people extrapolate all sorts of things from the vote. One thing that definitely occurred—I know that it occurred for people in my constituency—was that a number of people voted leave because they felt left behind by what we call this global world and the global way of doing business. These people used to work, often down the pits in Nottinghamshire—I am from Worksop, so I understand the sort of lives that miners had and I have no romantic attachment to the coal mining industry—and in factories such as Siemens in high-quality jobs. Those jobs invariably paid good money, but they also added even more value to people’s lives. It was not just about the fact that it was work, which is, in itself, the right thing to do; it was not just the wages, which, in the deep coal mines in Nottinghamshire and at Siemens, were very good; and it was not just the trade and the skills that they conveyed—it was also that feeling of community and being valued. It was about all those great traditional British manufacturing values, which, in truth, began to disappear through the ’80s and into the ’90s. What the great Japanese car manufacturers brought back was much of that high-valued, highly skilled, super-effective and super-efficient manufacturing industry. That practice was not just confined to the automotive sector, because it runs right across many other sectors in manufacturing, which makes up 20% of our economy.
I say to all Conservative Members, “Shame on you if you have a manufacturer in your constituency that you have not been to to understand how a modern manufacturing business works and how it needs frictionless trade for the supply chains to work. Shame on you if you have not taken the opportunity to go to those places that might be outwith your constituency, but where your constituents work.” I say that very gently—
Anna Soubry
I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention in a moment, but not yet.
I say that very gently to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), as many of his constituents work in exactly the sorts of manufacturing industries that I am describing. No doubt, like a number of my constituents, some of them work at Toyota. When Members see how these wonderful manufacturing businesses work—whether it is ceramics, cars, automotives, potteries or glass—they will understand the importance of frictionless trade. What that means in the real world is that, at Toyota in Burnaston, parts arrive on lorries, which have come through the tunnel and straight up the motorway, and within three hours they are on the assembly line. It is an astonishing and an incredible achievement that this country should be proud of. It is part of Margaret Thatcher’s legacy—
Anna Soubry
I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention in a moment.
It was Margaret Thatcher who, as a proud Conservative, championed free trade. I am a Tory. I believe in business. I believe in capitalism and in enterprise. I believe in our economy as it provides jobs and prosperity. It is indeed an engine of aspiration for so many of my constituents who want to see themselves going into apprenticeships at Rolls-Royce as much as they would like to go the finest universities.
Sir Edward Leigh
I knew Margaret Thatcher; I worked for Margaret Thatcher. My right hon. Friend ain’t no Margaret Thatcher.
Anna Soubry
I do not pretend to be able to walk in Margaret Thatcher’s boots, but I have read her speeches about the advantages of the single market. She was a huge champion—probably the biggest champion—of the single market. It was Margaret Thatcher who went over to Japan and promised the Japanese that our country would always stay in the single market. On that basis, Japanese business invested billions of pounds in this country.
My hon. Friend attacks me in a wholly unnecessary and really rather foolish way, but I hope that he will speak freely and honestly in our debate and give his assessment of what is facing our country if we do not get Brexit right. It is all well and good for Members to have their ideologically-driven, hard Brexit ideas when they are not able to face up to the reality of what they mean for people in my constituency and the rest of our country.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Anna Soubry
In a moment.
The reality, which is faced in the White Paper, is that if we do not deliver frictionless trade in the way in which companies such as Toyota need and demand, they will simply not be able to operate. Some 81% of Toyota cars produced at Burnaston are exported into the European Union. And before anybody says, “Well, there will be new markets”—those unicorns that our Government will be chasing in new deals—please understand how the modern manufacturing industry works. Companies such as Toyota already make cars in other parts of the world to satisfy and supply the local market.
Anna Soubry
I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and then I will come down the row.
Nicky Morgan
Does not the intervention on my right hon. Friend made by our hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) show what is the matter with this Brexit debate? Rather than talking about the detail and the risk to thousands of jobs across the country in our manufacturing sector—the Conservative party has championed that sector since 2010—he prefers to trade insults and trade on personalities.
Anna Soubry
Here is a surprise: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend.
Anna Soubry
I said that I would go down the row first. In a moment gents; hang on.
Charlie Elphicke
I have been listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend’s speech. I am a former remainer and fellow believer in free enterprise, which was why I set out a detailed plan on how we can have frictionless trade using the World Trade Organisation trade facilitation agreement that was entered into in 2017.
My constituents have some questions that I would like to pose to my right hon. Friend. Why is it that so many lorries come in through Dover laden with goods yet so many return empty? Why is there a £100 billion trade surplus for the European Union? Why should we give the European Union access to our goods market but not insist on access to our financial services market after we leave the European Union?
Anna Soubry
I do not wish to be rude to my hon. Friend, but that really is the stuff of madness. Of course we need to export more, but here is the real question that he should be asking. At the moment, a lorry that comes in from the European Union through Dover will take, at the most, two minutes to go through. If it comes from outside the European Union, the process takes 20 minutes at the least, and at the most—and more typically—it takes two hours. How does that transpose to the manufacturing sector and to the Toyota workers outside Derby—some 3,000 people, with three to five times as many in the supply chains?
I say to my hon. Friend that this, Sir, is the real world. In the real world, when Toyota makes an order for car seats, they are delivered absolutely ready on to the production line within four hours of the order being placed. If we do not deliver frictionless trade, either through a customs union or some magical third way that the Prime Minister thinks she can deliver—good luck to her on that—thousands of jobs will go, and hon. Members sitting on the Government Benches, in private conversations, know that to be the case. What they have said in those private conversations is that the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs will be worth it to regain our country’s sovereignty—tell that to the people who voted leave in my constituency. Nobody voted to be poorer, and nobody voted leave on the basis that somebody with a gold-plated pension and inherited wealth would take their jobs away from them.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I have a very successful manufacturer in my constituency abiding by the very disciplines that my right hon. Friend has, rightly, been so effusive about. Imagine, then, my surprise when I discovered that the proprietor and chief executive of this organisation, Col-Tec—one Mike Bailey—was to be my opponent as the UKIP candidate in the New Forest West division.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I think the point that my right hon. Friend did not want to take is that there are plenty of businessmen who are in favour of leaving the European Union.
The point that I wanted to raise with my right hon. Friend is that her whole argument is passionately based on the fallacy that one cannot have just-in-time supply chains crossing international customs frontiers. In fact, that is the way that most of the rest of the world trades. At Toyota in her own constituency—I met Toyota last week—quite a substantial proportion of its componentry arrives from outside the European Union to be bolted on to its cars. She is putting up these completely false fears that just-in-time supply chains are threatened by trading across customs frontiers.
Anna Soubry
I have to say to my hon. Friend that that is absolute codswallop. When I went to Toyota, we were shown exactly the places where the parts had come from. For example, some parts had come from Japan. There was a special arrangement with Japan whereby the parts come into the factory and sit in a bonded warehouse. Those parts number less than 1% of the total. Toyota has 2.5 million parts coming into that factory, and the vast majority come from the European Union—it relies on frictionless trade.
With great respect to my hon. Friend, he is somebody who makes the case that we should be a member of the World Trade Organisation. Let us just get this one straight. If our country joins the World Trade Organisation—[Interruption.] Well, we are a member through our membership of the European Union. If we are a member of the WTO in our own right, we will have to abide by its rules, which say that every member must secure its borders—I repeat, must secure its borders. That does not just mean that our country, when we leave the European Union, must secure its borders, but that the European Union, whether it likes or not, must secure its borders. What does that mean? There will have to be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is dishonest and disingenuous for people to stand up and make out that something other than that is the reality.
The White Paper faces up to Brexit reality, and that is what Conservative Members must now do. We have to face that reality, just like I have had to face the reality that we are leaving the European Union. Hon. Members have to do the right thing by their constituents and put trade and business at the heart of Brexit.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I want to go back to the point about enforcing our border. Some people say that, if we were trading under WTO rules, we would not need to have a border in Ireland, but under the WTO’s most-favoured-nation rules, if we did not enforce the border in Ireland, we would be in breach of our agreements with other parts of the world. We would have no right to say, “No border.” Furthermore, if Ireland did not enforce the border with the rest of the UK, it would be in breach of its obligations to the EU, and if the EU did not require Ireland to respect the border, it would be in breach of its obligations across the world. So I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point so clearly.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have heard exactly the same points from businesses in my community. I have heard the same points about the Northern Ireland-Ireland border, too. That is why I favour staying in a customs union. The White Paper is full of magical thinking, but the amendments tabled by some in the right hon. Lady’s party directly contradict what is in the White Paper, because what they really want is a reckless no deal Brexit in which we crash out, with all the damage that will cause.
Anna Soubry
I completely agree. I say to my Government that they are in grave danger of not just losing the plot but losing a considerable amount of support from the people of this country unless we get Brexit right. The people who put their names to those amendments—notably new clause 36 and amendment 73—did so not to be helpful to the Government and to support the White Paper. We know that from their public proclamations, in which they have tried to trash the White Paper.
I made it clear to the Whips and to—well, actually, to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, for whom I have a lot of time because he is a very good Minister, a very good man and a very good constituency MP. I say that because I have been to his constituency—
Anna Soubry
For the record, that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). If anyone else had said it, I would have been very rude. [Interruption.] Sorry. Scrub that; it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey)—ever the trouble maker.
This is really serious. I told the Minister that I would not press my amendments to a vote. That is not because I lack courage—in fact, given events, I would like to think I have a bit of courage. Some say I do not have a fear gene at all. Just to remind hon. Members, three people have received custodial sentences for the death threats I have received. I am getting a bit tired of being called a traitor. Certain people on these Benches support a newspaper that, disgracefully, had the temerity to suggest that the Prime Minister of our country might in some way have committed treason by the production of this White Paper. That is outrageous. Right hon. and hon. Members on these Benches really need a bit of a reality check, not just on Brexit but on the way this party is conducting itself and on who they choose to call their friends.
Let me return to why I will not press my amendments to a vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the right hon. Lady returns to the substance of her remarks, I just point out to her that she has already had 21 minutes of the debate, and—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Order. This is not a music hall. The right hon. Lady is perfectly in order—she has an awful lot of things to deal with and she has taken a lot of interventions—but I know that she will quite soon begin to come to a peroration.
Anna Soubry
By remarkable coincidence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks. I want to explain why I will not press my amendments to a vote, as I indicated to the Minister last week. The reason is the production of the White Paper.
I will be very frank: the White Paper does not go as far as it should—it is silent on services, which make up 80% of our economy—but I welcome it because it absolutely marks that our Prime Minister understands the needs of British business, in particular manufacturing businesses, and is determined to do the right thing. She has come up with this third way. Whether she can achieve it remains to be seen, but I decided not to press my amendments to a vote because of my support for the White Paper and my desire to give that third way a chance.
Having done that, I believed, as a pragmatic, reasonable, moderate Conservative, that I had done the right thing by my Prime Minister and, as much as anything else, by my country. Imagine, therefore, my profound disappointment that the Government today, for reasons I can just about understand, decided to accept four amendments, two of which are not controversial but two of which—new clause 36 and amendment 73—seek to wreck and undermine this.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Is not one of the features of these two amendments the fact that they would not do what their proposers seek them to do? The fact that the Government have chosen to accept amendments that are unnecessary and useless shows that the only intention behind their tabling was malevolent? The fact that they are being maintained at the present time is also an act of malevolence towards the Government by the proposers.
Anna Soubry
I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Members on the Government Front Bench, and indeed across the House, should be hanging their heads in shame. This is the stuff of complete madness. The only reason the Government have accepted the amendments is that they are frightened of around 40 Members of Parliament—the hard, no deal Brexiteers —who should have been seen off a long time ago. These people do not want a responsible Brexit; they want their version of Brexit. They do not even represent the people who actually voted to leave. The consequences are grave, and not just for this party, but for our country. One has to wonder who is in charge. Who is running Britain? Is it the Prime Minister, or is it my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)? I know where my money is at the moment.
Stephen Doughty
What has really been going on here is that some of these extreme individuals have been threatening the Government, trying to hold them hostage, and saying that they will vote against Third Reading and bring the Government down, to get these bizarre, contradictory amendments through.
Anna Soubry
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is disgraceful, because this White Paper is a genuine attempt by our Prime Minister to heal the divisions in our party, and indeed the divisions in our country, and take us to a smooth and sensible Brexit that delivers for everybody.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Government were guaranteed the support of the Labour party and the Scottish National party against these wrecking amendments, we could finally reveal what a tiny minority of the House of Commons is trying to hold us all to ransom over a reasonable deal with the European Union?
Anna Soubry
My right hon. and learned Friend is right, as ever.
The truth is that both main political parties are now in the grasp of the few who falsely claim to speak for the many. A lack of ability, or perhaps courage, the over-liking of the safety and sanctity of ministerial office or, frankly, just a quiet life, on whichever side of the House, and a guaranteed income for a loyal Back Bencher with a handsome majority, mean that our country is hurtling not just towards the extremes of British political life, but over the Brexit cliff, which the overwhelming majority of leavers did not vote for—indeed, they were promised the precise opposite.
The time has come for the nonsense to be stopped. The time has come for people to show courage and do the right thing by our country. We are leaving the European Union, but we have to leave in such a way that protects jobs and prosperity—and peace in Northern Ireland—for everybody in this country. It is time for people to put aside the ideology and the nonsenses that invariably come from not inhabiting the real world. Let us face up to reality, as this White Paper seeks to do, and reject these two ludicrous amendments that the Government have agreed to. In due course, let us wake up to the further reality: we will end up in the single market and the customs union; the only question is when.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) for the passion with which she has spoken. She spoke authentically about the care and attention that she has taken to look into the supply chain issues, the just-in-time delivery systems that are the foundation of modern manufacturing in our country. She was not taking an ideological view, which certain Conservative Members, who may guffaw at that, might take, but thinking about the economy: our constituents’ jobs and all the prosperity and tax revenues that pay for the vital public services that we need to keep this country going. The national health service, the education system, housing and local government all depend on a healthy, vibrant economy.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman misunderstands amendment 73. One of the other amendments, which the Government have also accepted, would stop them having a Henry VIII power for a new customs union. If a new customs union were to be introduced by legislation, amendment 73 could be brought in under that customs arrangement. It simply retains power for this House.
Mr Leslie
We have got the hon. Gentleman’s measure now. He used to be an entertaining curiosity, but no longer. He represents a major present threat to the future of our economy and our constituents’ jobs. He is trying to scupper our smooth frictionless arrangements for businesses that currently have to pay VAT but can do so because we treat it as a matter of dispatches and arrivals, rather than its having to be paid upfront. By deleting paragraph 14 of schedule 8, the hon. Gentleman would hole future VAT arrangements below the water line.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Are we not seeing here an insertion of further red lines when we have enough of them already?
Mr Leslie
Exactly. It would be sensible of the Government to read the runes and start thinking about where there is a consensus in Parliament for a positive way forward rather than constantly laying down or accepting more red lines, or caving in to threats from those who are very loud but represent a tiny minority viewpoint.
New clause 2 is really important because it would preserve our current role of participation in the EU VAT area. I hope hon. Members will see the purpose of that. I think we currently have 25 million customs declarations paying VAT at the border. That will potentially rise to 255 million. Imagine the bureaucracy, the cost of administration and the paperwork for our VAT system if those declarations also have to be made at the border. Amendment 73 would end up taking out our participation. I intended to raise this issue as a matter of debate, but perhaps I should press new clause 2 to a vote, because the EU VAT area is absolutely crucial to avoiding a hard border.
It is important that we pick out the problems with the Chequers arrangement. I understand that the Prime Minister is trying to find some sort of balance, but I am afraid to say that the notion of a facilitated customs arrangement just does not quite get us to where we need to be. I am delighted with the acceptance of how important a common rulebook for goods is to our country. That recognition of economic reality is important, but it is only one piece of the jigsaw that we need. For instance, we need to ensure that the 80% of our economy in the services sector is not completely abandoned and that we lose out as a result.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I would just like to reflect on how refreshing it is—it is probably what the majority of the country wants to see—that sensible people are working cross-party to try to find a way forward in this dreadful mess. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the Chequers arrangement. It is an opening bid to the EU, is it not, saying, “Okay, come back and tell us which pieces you are happy or unhappy with.”? I am interested in whether he knows Labour’s position on the wrecking amendments, specifically amendments 73 and 36. Will he and his party will be joining us in voting against them?
Mr Leslie
Well, I will certainly want to vote against amendment 73, but my hon. Friends will make their own remarks in their own time. I do not know what their intentions are, as I have not had a chance to hear from them. Intuitively, I doubt very much that my hon. Friends, knowing what the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is up to, knowing where the members of the ERG come from on the political spectrum—the hard right Brexit perspective—and knowing how important the economy is to the future of this country, will abstain on amendment 73.
Stephen Doughty
It is very clear, as my hon. Friend says, who those Members are working with and what their agenda is. They are working with the likes of Nigel Farage and others who would like to see us crash out, so that they can deregulate the economy and change it into a Singapore-style tax haven on the edge of Europe where they can pursue their right-wing fantasies.
Mr Leslie
Yes, indeed.
It is helpful if we view the two Bills we are considering today and tomorrow as a piece, as they interrelate with one another. Many of the amendments tabled for the Trade Bill tomorrow on a customs union are also on today’s amendment paper. I say gently to the Government, “Nice try with your facilitated customs arrangement, but it is not going to fly for a number of different reasons.” I urge the Chancellor and the Minister to stop putting down red lines. They will only find that they come back and embarrass them when they have to accept a customs union.
Let me quickly go into detail on why a customs union really will have to apply in this situation. There may be Conservative Members who agree with me on this point. The facilitated customs arrangement may well apply if we have a free trade agreement with the EU, but only a customs union gets rid of what is known as the rules of origin requirements—the local content thresholds needed to prove whether an FTA is in place to qualify for preferential tariff arrangements. Under a customs union, we do not have to have rules of origin checks. That is a massive advantage of the customs union.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
That is not actually correct. It is quite common in a free trade agreement to have what is known as an auto-pact, so that there can be frictionless arrangements, for example for the motor industry. The same could apply for aerospace.
Mr Leslie
There are certain manufactured goods where they have that, but across the piece of a whole economy we do not see a circumstance where rules of origin have been abolished in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. Rules of origin are really quite burdensome for manufacturers to prove. They have to count the content and document where components come from. They then have to lodge those documents as they cross the border. My point is that the facilitated customs arrangement, with its rules of origin requirements, will have friction at the border. For that reason, we are going to have to accept that a customs union is preferable.
Vicky Ford
On the rules of origin, the hon. Gentleman may wish to read the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention on rules of origin, which covers a broader area than just the customs union. It is possible to have agreement on rules of origin outside the customs union.
Mr Leslie
My experience is very different in terms of the information I have. If we look across the range of goods as a whole, there are problems with rules of origin outside the customs union.
The second problem with the facilitated customs arrangement is that it breaches article 3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—GATT—which is part of the World Trade Organisation rules. Article 3 is the national treatment principle, which says that we should not treat imported goods unfairly relative to domestically produced goods. Because of the track and trace requirements in the facilitated customs arrangement architecture, we will have to treat imported goods differently to those produced and made in the UK.
The third problem is that if we want to make free trade agreements with the rest of the world, the Government are shooting themselves in the foot with the facilitated customs arrangement because article 24 of GATT states that we have to eliminate substantially all trade barriers between constituent trade authorities. If the UK is having to collect tariffs on behalf of the EU, that introduces a barrier that will have to fetter future free trade agreements. I do not particularly believe we can get better FTAs beyond the customs union; I think our leverage as part of the EU is superior, but on a technical level a facilitated customs arrangement, I am afraid to say, is just not going to wash.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On the important issue of rules of origin, which my hon. Friend has just raised, we have heard the argument from some people is that it is not a problem. If it is not a problem, then why do the Government, in paragraph 23 of the White Paper, state that the UK is proposing
“no routine requirements for rules of origin between the UK and the EU”?
Mr Leslie
Exactly. Presumably the Government think they can negotiate on that between the UK and the EU bilaterally, but actually that is not the way that this works. Under the WTO arrangements, we have to make sure we have the same application of rules as we would in other arrangements around the world.
A customs union is not just preferable; it is the only realistic option. The idea that the European Union is going to say, “Fine, we’re happy with you splitting the four freedoms” is for the birds. That is not going to happen, especially as populism is running riot worldwide. The EU feels very firmly that it wants to defend the international rules-based system. It feels very firmly that the four freedoms of the single market and the customs union are integral to it. The idea that Switzerland provides an example, when it has endured decades of constant treaty negotiations year after year after year—that is not a model Britain should seek to parallel.
The idea that we should simply hope that by focusing on the withdrawal agreement we can secure our future is also a fallacy. The notion that we will be able just to staple on to the back of this arrangement, on a few sides of A4, political statements on our future relationship with the EU is deeply dangerous. We have to make sure that we settle these issues—I know the former Brexit Secretary agrees on this particular point. The idea that what is said on one side of exit day will necessarily be enforced on the other side of exit day is just not true. There is no legal enforceability to any warm words about our future relationship. These issues have to be set out at this particular stage.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is time we listen to the people who run businesses, rather than sit in our comfortable seats telling people what to do?
Mr Leslie
Yes, and the problem we have had is that ideology and populism have been running this country for the last few years. We need to stop that and assert common-sense economic reality much more. As the right hon. Member for Broxtowe was saying in her speech, this transcends the political parties. This is not a time to be playing party political games of advantage. Our country is absolutely at stake here.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many people want to speak. We have three hours of debate left, but we cannot continue with speeches of the length that we have had so far, although there is nothing wrong with what any hon. Members have done. We will therefore start with a time limit of 12 minutes.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
For the convenience of members of the Gallery, I should start by saying that this is not a resignation statement—that was last week. This week is a return to my normal business, as an ordinary Back Bencher carrying out the scrutiny of business. I thought that it would be rather mundane until I walked into what appears to be this rhetorical firefight that we have had so far in the debate.
Before I come back to that, the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill and its partner, the Trade Bill coming tomorrow, are vital pieces of legislation. In the newspapers at the weekend, I read that some people were so cross with the White Paper that they were proposing to vote against this. Well, I do not think that they can be much more cross than I am with the White Paper, but I urge them not to vote against it. These are vital pieces of legislation and they are necessary, whether we have the Government’s White Paper policy, my old White Paper policy, the FTA that some have talked about or indeed even the World Trade Organisation outcome. In every single case, we need these Bills and therefore I will be supporting them.
I want to speak directly to the new clause proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I will do so without impugning anybody’s motives or questioning whether somebody is acting in the national interest or not and I will not be firing off any gibes. I am not quite sure who she was referring to when she talked about having an excessive attachment to public office, but I do not think it was me. The simple truth is that this is a vitally important argument. It is central to the whole question of the economic aspect of Brexit—Brexit is not just economic; it is democratic as well, but it is central to that—and I will put to one side in my arguments the fact that being out of the customs union was in the Conservative party’s manifesto and therefore, in theory at least, one we are committed to.
The arguments go right to the heart of the principal issues. The proponents of the new clauses have a clear belief in the national economic interest, but they clearly believe that being outside the customs union will lead to a precipitate loss of trade and that the loss of the ability to make trade deals matters less than that potential loss of trade. That is the core of the argument. It is pretty straightforward in that respect.
Let us look at some facts. Back in 1999, the United Kingdom—we are talking about the customs union, so this is about goods—was exporting 60% of its goods to the European Union and 40% to the rest of the world. Since then, that has gone down by approximately 1% per annum, so it is now about 45% to the European Union and the rest to the rest of the world. Pretty much by the end of this decade, it is likely to be 60:40 in favour of the rest of the world, so because it takes away the right to our own commercial policy, the prospect of staying inside the customs union favours the shrinking minority of our trade over the expanding, fast-growing majority of that trade. That is the very simple, fundamental, initial point that we should take on board. It also presumes that being outside the customs union will significantly damage trade because there will be friction at the border.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
One of the most remarkable features of the last 20 years has been the globalised economy and the very rapid growth and emergence of major new markets, so inevitably the balance of our trade was going to grow with them and decline with the European Union. We want to remain as attractive to investors from the new economies as to the old. It does us no advantage in our dealings with China, Brazil and India to damage the value of our access to the European market. Outside events have altered this balance; it is not a failing of our EU arrangements.
Mr Davis
My right hon. and learned Friend was being uncharacteristically inattentive, because that is exactly what I said: because of the growth in world trade, that is what is going on. He is exactly right that we should take a great interest in the fast growth in world trade because we are best placed, probably of most countries in the world, to take the most advantage of that. Also within his comment was the presumption, which I was about to address, that friction in our trade with the European Union—low friction, but friction—will cause enormous damage.
John Redwood
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many successful manufacturing businesses in Britain today have these just-in-time supply chains bringing in large quantities of raw material and component from outside the EU through a system of authorised economic operators, electronic manifests and the settlement of any bills not at the port? There are not people sitting in boxes in the port taking the money.
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. It is an issue that I will return to in a second, but before I do I want to make a point about friction. The presumption in all this is that we have a magical, frictionless system at the moment. Actually, we will have seen on our television screens that that is not true. This entire House will have watched Operation Stack in progress over various years. Operation Stack is what we do when one of the ports gets locked up for one reason or another—a strike in France or whatever. It has been operated 74 times in 20 years. In 2015, it took up 31 days of friction, and our businesses—the just-in-time businesses and the perishable goods businesses—all coped with it, so let us not frighten ourselves in doing this negotiation. Nobody wants it and nobody likes it, but they cope with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) pointed out that with World Trade Organisation facilitation, we will actually minimise the friction on trade through these ports, as was reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood).
Secondly, while people understandably focus on some of the pressure points—most particularly Dover, which we heard about a second ago—they forget that there is strong competition between the ports on the North sea and the ports on the channel. Zeebrugge, Antwerp and Rotterdam all want to increase their throughput at the cost of the Calais-Dover crossing. They are already preparing for increases in throughput in their own areas when we are outside the EU and preparing for the increase in work—because there will be some increase in work—but again, as my right hon. Friend said, it will not happen at the border. It will happen before they get there or after they pass through it, so our so-called dependency on French ports will turn out to be illusory.
Thirdly, in support of the arguments that any friction at the border is unacceptable we hear lots of talk about supply chains. We had it from my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe who proposed this new clause. The simple truth is that this ignores the fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) pointed out, that lots of international supply chain operations operate across borders where there are customs, tariff and currency arrangements. I happen to know one of them very well, because I operated a business across just such a border myself—between Canada and the USA. [Hon. Members: “Thirty years ago.”] I went back last year.
Mr Davis
No, I will not give way.
I went back last year to look at it again, and yes it was 15-year-old technology. It could be better now; it could be faster. What happens in Detroit, the centre of the American motor industry? In Ontario, across a very difficult and constrained border, tougher than Dover, there is an entire industry supplying parts, components and engines for that motor car industry. It operates across a border that has tariffs on it, too.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Davis
No, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. I am short of time.
The simple truth is they operate even where there are tariffs, and we are proposing a non-tariff arrangement—there would be no tariffs here; the primary concerns will not be the collection money but other things.
Mr Davis
No, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me.
The issues that remain at the border will depend on the customs policy we decide on, which very clearly will alter how that border operates. It will include rules of origin, as has already been pointed out; tariff-paid status, if we are in the future customs arrangement, which is more difficult than rules of origin; and regulatory compliance. None requires action at the border. All can be dealt with by electronic pre-notification or pre or post-audit at either origin or destination.
Without doubt, the most difficult issue in the negotiations as they relate to borders has been Northern Ireland. There is no way, however, that a UK Government are ever going to install a hard border in Northern Ireland—that is as plain as a pikestaff. No UK Government would risk the peace process, which has been going on for decades. Neither would the Irish Government. I cannot imagine in a century that an Irish Government would do that either. What many people forget, however, are that there is already a border there—there is a currency border, a VAT border, an excise border, and there are other tax borders. They are operated north and south of the border by the UK and the Irish tax and customs collection organisations, operating together using intelligence- led intervention.
Much is made of the 300 border crossings. One of the outstanding issues with being outside the customs union is, as somebody said, the issue of rules of origin, but in Northern Ireland, while there may be 300 border crossings, there are only six ports. Rest-of-world imports can actually be surveilled and controlled very straightforwardly. This issue, which has become much more difficult since it was politicised—it was actually working quite well in the negotiations before it was politicised—is eminently soluble, by technical means and co-operation between the two states.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
If what the right hon. Gentleman says about the border is so, why was he part of a Government that agreed to the backstop last December?
Mr Davis
They did not agree to the backstop; they agreed to the joint report that talked about full alignment. [Interruption.] Does the hon. and learned Lady want to listen to the answer? She will remember me standing at the Dispatch Box saying that we interpreted full alignment as outcome alignment and relating directly to the issues in the north-south strands—principally, agriculture, transport, and environment as it applies to the single electricity market. Those are the primary strands, and they are eminently soluble, by arrangements that already exist in Northern Ireland—for example, the carve-out on environmental legislation. It is a very straightforward issue, but it has been blown up into something else by the other side of the negotiations.
The risk and costs of having a customs border are less than is being claimed, and what we would give up to join a customs union is much more than is imagined. The EU is a slow and not very effective negotiator of free trade agreements. We keep hearing about its size and negotiating power, but the fact that it represents 28 different countries means it comes up with sub-optimal outcomes all the time, and actually we are the country that does least well out of the EU’s free trade agreements. They almost never involve services, for example, which are our primary trade. The EU is a slow and not very effective negotiator of trade deals.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
It is interesting to follow the former Brexit Secretary and to reflect on the speech he has just given. It explained why he resigned from the Government but, in the end, it just clashes with reality—that is the unfortunate detail of the evidence he has put to the House today.
I shall speak in support of new clause 1, but also to my new clause 6 and amendment 9, which relate to conducting an impact assessment on the effect of leaving the common external tariff. I shall also speak against amendment 73 and new clause 36. We have heard why the former Brexit Secretary believes that any kind of customs union would somehow be bad for Britain and why we would be better off without it, and I will first address the fallacies in his argument. He was extraordinarily dismissive of the impact of checks at the border and of delays and additional costs, particularly for manufacturers and just-in-time production.
I make no bones about the fact that I am speaking strongly in support of manufacturing industry in my constituency. I will resist the temptation to go off on a tangent about Haribo and the Starmix I am sometimes allowed to test when I go to visit, but people there do tell me how important it is that they can bring ingredients to and fro smoothly across the border and talk about the impact of such delays.
Anna Soubry
Did the right hon. Lady notice that there was no detail about the reality of the America-Canada border, which took 10 years to construct, cost £10 billion, deals with facial recognition and involves 100 companies in the automotive sector of Detroit and nothing more? Does she think that such a model would not provide the frictionless trade that our manufacturing sector needs?
Yvette Cooper
I completely agree with the right hon. Lady. The former Brexit Secretary seems to be arguing that because companies trade across borders that involve customs checks, we should rip up our customs-free borders. He is saying that because those trades take place, it is okay somehow to add costs to our trading process. Why on earth would we do that? Why on earth would we add burdens to businesses that do not face them at the moment? Why on earth would we make the process difficult and more costly for them? It is not that we think all trade will stop—of course it will not—but the point is that that trade will become more costly and burdensome, and our businesses and manufacturers will be at a disadvantage compared with their European neighbours and competitors. That is unfair on our manufacturers, which we in this House should be standing up for. I certainly believe in standing up for Yorkshire manufacturing.
The former Brexit Secretary also seemed to be arguing that, because we coped with Operation Stack before, let us have more delays again. Yes, we can cope, but Operation Stack cost businesses coping with those long delays a fortune.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give some consideration to supporting our new clause 36, which will become a key piece of legislation if the UK is to operate proper trade defences? She mentioned manufacturing, and I note that many Labour Members have constituencies where workers may depend on the UK’s having good trade defences. Under the facilitated customs arrangement, that would not be possible without new clause 36.
Yvette Cooper
Let me just deal with new clause 36. If the Government are saying that they will accept it, I do not understand how that does not rip a hole right through their White Paper. New clause 36 explicitly states that we cannot collect customs and excise duties at the border on behalf of another country unless that country is going to do the same for us, but the White Paper states:
“However, the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK.”
That is the opposite of what is said in new clause 36. Have the Government ripped up their own White Paper in the space of a couple of days? This is a chaotic approach to a matter that is so serious, and it shows a ridiculous wobbling in the face of a small group of people who I do not believe speak for the majority in this country.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
That phrase in the White Paper describes a perfectly sensible arrangement. If we adopt the new clause, 27 other countries will face the prospect of searching for new technology and setting up their own bureaucratic arrangements to accommodate the Brexiteers in my party. We urgently need these EU negotiations to start with partners who can rely on us to stick to a consistent line, and it could be very damaging to change the basic position on such an important matter within one week.
Yvette Cooper
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right on two counts. First, I think that this inconsistency and buckling in the face of objections from what I consider to be an unrepresentative group is the wrong approach. Secondly, I think that these customs arrangements are immensely important.
Yvette Cooper
No, I will not, because there is a time limit and I want to finish my speech early so that others can contribute.
Members who oppose any form of customs union are underestimating the significance of rules of origin checks which, according to the Government’s own analysis, can burden businesses with additional costs amounting to between 4% and 15%.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Why would any company bother to carry out expensive rules of origin checks if paying the tariff, which might be as little as 2%, would be much cheaper? It is as simple as that.
Yvette Cooper
That is really flipped logic. The hon. Gentleman is effectively saying, “They do not have to do the checks because they can all just pay the tariffs.” Why on earth are we going through this whole process in the first place if all we are going to get is a tiny reduction in tariffs that no one will take advantage of in order to get any benefits?
Mr David Davis
The logic is actually very simple. Empirical evidence shows that in international trade, companies seek to claim their rebates and do what is necessary to avoid tariffs when a tariff is lower than 3%, not when it is above. What that tells us is that the cost of rules of origin administration is less than 3%. Companies are rational operators. The numbers that the right hon. Lady cited from a supposed Government study were wrong.
Yvette Cooper
I would caution the right hon. Gentleman against dismissing the rules of origin checks. There is a huge worry about the burden that they will impose on small businesses in particular. There is a big difference between large and small businesses in this regard. It might be worth large businesses claiming the money back because they can set up systems to do so, but for small businesses the process can be devastating. I am thinking particularly of the huge number of small businesses that have not yet traded outside the EU and for which rules of origin will be a new burden.
Why on earth would we want to add these additional burdens and checks on businesses that have not faced them before? I find myself in a very strange position. I, as a Labour MP, am arguing far more strongly and passionately against these additional burdens on businesses than those on the hard right of the Conservative party, who ought to be arguing against such burdens.
Wera Hobhouse
Surely rules of origin checks are about not only tariffs, but environmental protection, for example. It is not just about the money; it is about where the products have come from, how they were produced and whether they conform with what we believe in.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady is right. We need to address the wider issues relating to friction at the border as well.
Let me say something about the Government’s facilitated customs arrangement. I understand what Ministers are trying to do and that they are trying to square a circle. They are trying to pull us out of the common external tariff without paying any of the penalties of being outside it. I think that that is a leap of faith—it is implausible. I think that there are huge questions about whether such an arrangement is deliverable and whether it would be robust enough for the EU ever to sign up for it.
The Government are expecting that there will be sufficiently robust procedures for tariffs to be collected at the border for widgets coming in from the United States or other countries, and therefore no checks—no spot checks; no additional checks—on whether forms are being filled in correctly and accurately, on whether there is fraud and on whether there is an incentive for companies to fill in the forms in respect of one direction but then actually to move the goods in another. That is significant, because the European Commission is currently taking action to recover what it believes is €2 billion of under-claimed customs duties as a result of the UK’s failure to crack down on Chinese clothing importers’ customs fraud. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that, the point is that the European Commission and EU member states do not have confidence in our customs arrangements at the moment—never mind our asking them to join in a huge leap of faith with their agreeing to our future facilitated customs arrangement. The Government are relying on some whizzy wonderful new technology, and while I hope that that will arrive very quickly, there are serious questions about how long that will take and what the consequences will be.
My new clause 6 calls for a proper impact assessment of the consequences of being outside the common external tariff. I still cannot believe that that has not been done. I cannot believe that there has been no serious assessment of the fantasy future trade deals that will somehow make us better off, or of the additional burdens that will result from being outside the common external tariff, which will make us worse off.
Let me now say something about amendment 73, which I think is one of the most destructive measures tabled by some of the hard-right Conservatives in the European Research Group. It would remove from the Bill any provisions that would be needed for a customs union. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who chairs the ERG, has said that that is okay because there will be a future vote. Why should there be a future vote? Why should we not vote now? I think that we should have a customs union, so let us have that vote now, rather than voting to remove the provisions from the Bill. Why on earth, for the sake of manufacturing, would we ditch those customs provisions? The ERG wants to remove the possibility of a customs union from the Bill.
I am astonished that Ministers want to accept that proposal. It is deeply destructive, and it would actually make it harder for the Government to secure the customs arrangements that we need. It means that if their facilitated customs arrangement does not work, the fall-back position will be no customs deal at all, which would be deeply damaging for our manufacturers.
I hope that our Front Benchers will also vote against this deeply damaging ERG amendment because I do not see how we can tolerate the damage that the hard right of the Conservative party wants to do to our manufacturing industry. We need to be the party that will stand up for manufacturing industry and ensure that our manufacturers can get the best possible deal as part of the Brexit process. We owe it to them to do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) will be the last Member to speak under the 12-minute limit. By how much the subsequent limit will have to be lowered is very much dependent on the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for calling me. You may be disbelieving, but I assure you that I will do my best to speak for fewer than 12 minutes, so I shall be rather more pithy than usual.
For the last 40 years, we have achieved some remarkable transformations in the British economy. We have made ourselves one of the most attractive economies in the world for inward investment and developed an extremely competitive modern economy in both goods and services. That is not entirely attributable to the single market and the customs union, but they played a very large part. The UK is regarded by many of the great firms that invest in this country as the most business-friendly member of the EU and the most attractive place to invest in a way that gives absolutely unfettered access to the largest developed international free trade area in the world. I personally have never understood why we are seeking to detract from that. In the referendum campaign, absolutely nobody made a major feature anywhere of saying that we should withdraw from these arrangements, and certainly nobody advocated the virtues of putting in place at our ports and borders customs checks, customs procedures, tariffs, regulatory divergence and all the things that cause cost.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
The key concern for me is that we seem to be separating EU trade and non-EU trade, but is it not the case that so much of our non-EU exports are from foreign-owned businesses that invest in this country for export precisely because of the attraction of the single market and so on?
Mr Clarke
I agree and that is why I tabled, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), new clause 12 on a customs union. I have taken the view that, while I can see nothing wrong with that amendment, I am prepared to try to get us out of this political chaos by giving the Government White Paper a try. It is attempting to reach precisely the objectives I am arguing for: frictionless trade, with none of these procedures at the border. I cannot see what is wrong with a customs union. If anyone calls a vote on that, I shall abstain. I do not vote against amendments that I plainly agree with and that I have tabled. If a facilitated customs arrangement can be devised which achieves the same, good luck. What is most important is that, now we have the White Paper, we agree with our partners in the EU that we now negotiate on this. We have wasted two years and are facing laughable suggestions that we are going to solve all the problems now in the next three months, or possibly by Christmas if that slips. That is absolutely ludicrous. That is the uncertainty that is racking business and anybody in the country with an interest in our economic future.
Now we have actually got quite a large majority of the Cabinet to agree on this. I never thought the Cabinet we had was ever capable of agreeing on anything on this subject because of the sincerely held, completely opposite views on virtually every aspect of it. We now have most of the Cabinet behind it. If we give them a chance, lots of developments will take place. As compromise takes place, with any luck, people who actually understand the subject will be allowed to try to come up with some workable version of this that achieves the essential objectives.
I am afraid the debate that the public are listening to infuriates them as it is all about personalities. Most sensible members of the public do not have the faintest idea what we are talking about because, throughout the entire debate, no one has ever given a proper explanation to the country of what a customs union or a single market even are and what certificates of origin involve. That is inevitable. We have never debated these things before, but we owe it to the public to have a slightly more sensible debate in future.
Half the arguments used in the general debate do not understand what a trade agreement is with any other country. As things stand, if we leave with no deal, we will be the only developed country in the world that does not have a trade agreement with any other country, because it is not going to be easy to roll over all the other agreements we have with other countries, which are based on the EU. We have driven the EU to achieve all those agreements. I agree that there are problems with 28 member states negotiating, but the problems with America are far worse. All the Americans want to do is export food to us; they will not open up their public procurement or their service industries.
Mr Clarke
I cannot give way.
Some people want us to give up the hated European rules on animal welfare and food standards and bind ourselves to the lower American rules on food standards. So Congress—Washington—will be telling us what our standards are in those areas in future and we will be excluded from European markets and have to have a hard border with Northern Ireland and with the continent. Anyone listening to some of the opponents of the EU would think that other trade agreements simply let us have all the advantages with no obligations. All trade agreements involve mutual agreements on regulation, standards, health and safety, welfare and all the other relevant things that the parties mutually bind themselves to accept. There is not a country in the world that would accept a trade agreement of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) seems to be describing when he warms to the subject.
These are hugely important subjects, but for the past week, we have been debating them in the national debate in the most farcical and chaotic way that I can remember in my political career. The outcome is hugely important. If, one week after the Government set out a policy that I personally was prepared to give a fair wind to, I find that they are going to accept proposals such as amendment 73 and new clause 36, which promptly change that policy in a quite ridiculous way, I shall despair. The Government have only to vote against those new clauses and amendments; I am absolutely certain that the Opposition parties would not be able to think of a sensible reason why they should help my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset and others to get a majority in this House. We can demonstrate that they are a tiny handful of people, and their arguments are most certainly not in the national interest.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The new time limit will have to be no more than eight minutes.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I hope that the penny is now dropping among those who inflicted the EU referendum and the subsequent chaos on the country as to precisely what damage this Tory farce is doing to our standing in the world and to our economy. We are two years on, yet no real progress has been made. Tory rivalries, leadership ambitions and factionalism are making this country a laughing stock, and Tory Members should be ashamed. I am sorry to say that Labour Front Benchers also often contribute to the farce.
I want to speak in favour of accepting new clauses 1 and 12 if they are pushed to a vote, and to speak against new clause 36, which is clearly a wrecking amendment. I hope that, when the Minister responds, he is able to explain why new clause 36 does not drive a coach and horses through the Chequers agreement. Everyone in the House knows that it does, but Ministers appear to be pretending that it does not. I commend the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is no longer in her place, for the anger and passion that she brought to the debate, and for starting to set out the consequences of Brexit. So far, the debate has been rather short on consequences. There has been a lot about aspirations, ambition, ideology and speculation, but rather little about the consequences of Brexit. Some Government Members pretend that Brexit will have no impact on the UK economy. Others are more honest, including the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who has just left his place—
Tom Brake
I am sorry—the hon. Gentleman is present. He was more honest. I hope that he does not feel that I am misinterpreting him, but I listened carefully to him, as I hope others did, when he spoke on the “Today” programme on Radio 4 this morning, and I think that what he was doing, perhaps paraphrasing our outgoing Foreign Secretary, was to say, “F*** business”. He was saying that all businesses care about are profits, but I think they care about whether they are able to do the job they are required to do and provide the jobs in this country.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Unlike probably the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members, I actually used to work in manufacturing industry. I worked for the Ford Motor Company, and I also used to invest in manufacturing businesses. It really is a bit rich when people who know next to nothing about manufacturing lecture those of us who have been in business on the things we know about. Does the right hon. Gentleman dismiss the views of people such as Sir James Dyson and J. C. Bamford and the many other manufacturers who wanted to leave the European Union when we had the referendum?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to hear that I also worked in business before I came into Parliament. I worked for manufacturing businesses, among others. He mentions the two businesses which he in fact can mention because they are in favour of coming out of the European Union. We have heard rather a lot about those two businesses. One has of course relocated most of its production to China, so I am not sure it is particularly well positioned to talk about these things—
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 36, tabled in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members. I want to be clear that a strong deal that delivers a new equal partnership between the UK and the EU based on co-operation to advance mutual interests while respecting the sovereignty of this country is of course in everyone’s interests. This is also a golden opportunity for our country to become a free and independent nation, setting up its own laws and in control of its own destiny. I do not think that anyone in this House would disagree with that. We understand that the Government are engaged in the negotiating process and that all negotiations require a degree of give and take. There are of course certain red lines that cannot be crossed, as is being made clear in the debates that we are having right now and in the proposals that we are taking to the European Union.
New clause 36 cements into legislation the principle of reciprocity. It is clear and unambiguous. It was disappointing to see that the White Paper did not commit to that principle. The proposal in the White Paper does not deliver an equal partnership. It delivers one that does not put us on a level playing field. Because it states that
“the EU would need to be confident that goods cannot enter its customs territory without the correct tariff and trade policy being applied”,
we would effectively adopt much of that policy and collect tariffs on behalf of the EU.
However, the White Paper then states that
“the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK.”
We are therefore being asked to pass legislation that would mean that while the Government can agree with the EU to collect taxes for it and provide assurances about goods entering the UK that are heading to the EU, we would not expect the same arrangements to be provided by the EU in return. Why are we planning to give the EU assurances and confidence that we do not expect in return?
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether it is her view that new clause 36 conflicts or is in line with Government policy, as per the White Paper published last week?
Priti Patel
I just made the point that it was disappointing that the principle of reciprocity was not in the White Paper. My hon. Friend has already heard me say that I want an equal partnership, but what has been proposed is not equal. It is yet another compromise with nothing in return.
The Government have the chance to address that by backing new clause 36. The EU would then know that it cannot attempt to steamroller the Government on this issue in the negotiations and that if it wants to benefit from the UK collecting its tariffs, it needs to adopt a similar reciprocal arrangement.
Thus far, the Government have negotiated in good faith with the EU. We have been open, transparent and have already made many compromises and concessions, which is only right and fair. Within a week of taking office, the Prime Minister gave up our turn to the hold the EU presidency in the second half of 2017 as a gesture of goodwill. We offered a guarantee on citizens’ rights as early as possible, but the EU would not accept it. We have offered £40 billion of British taxpayers’ money, yet the trade deal that would benefit this country and the EU has been blocked by EU officials, who are, quite frankly, not engaging with us.
As we progress to the next stage of the negotiations on the future of the UK-EU relationship, Britain needs to be an equal partner with the EU, not its tax collector. New clause 36 would ensure that genuine reciprocal arrangements are established and would put it into law that the UK will not be part of an EU VAT regime and that Northern Ireland will be treated the same as the rest of the UK. We propose putting into law as a safeguard what the Government have said they want.
The public want to know that their political leaders will stay true to the promise made to them that Brexit means Brexit and that we are putting plans in place for our nation’s economic and political renewal, so the Government need to have the desire to modify their proposals and listen to the public.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Lady used commendable brevity, upon which I congratulate her.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). We sit on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs together and agree on much of its work. However, I am afraid that we agree on nothing when it comes to Brexit, and we have those battles in the Committee.
It is unfortunate that we have been left here this evening with a set of four amendments from the group of Conservative rebels who want to take us off a cliff edge. That is what the amendments are designed to do. We have unconfirmed reports that the Government may accept the amendments. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will nod to indicate that he will accept them, but if he does, I hope he has a match or a lighter in his pocket, because he would do just as well to set the Chequers agreement alight, given the consequences.
On top of all that, the former Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), must now regret leaving the Government, given that after threatening to resign five times, he finally went through with it by resigning following the Chequers agreement, which is just about to be ripped up by his own Front-Bench team and replaced with a much more hard-line position that will take us off the cliff with a hard Brexit. If he had only stayed on a few more days, he may have been able to see through the proposals that he started.
Ian Murray
I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, given that I mentioned him.
Ian Murray
I am delighted to hear that he would have resigned regardless, but he must surely have some regret. Perhaps we should be glad that he resigned, given that he stood up in this Chamber, as a former Secretary of State, and tried to persuade the House that Operation Stack and having trucks and lorries queued up at our ports was positive for the country. I have never known a former Secretary of State to look at something like Operation Stack, which would be a tragedy for our economy had it continued for much longer, and turn it into a positive. If that is the kind of argument he is offering to this House and to the country, we should ensure that we vote down most of these amendments.
I find it extraordinary that after going through this process—these debates give me déjà vu—we are still hearing arguments about the customs union and the single market. The Government managed to botch together what is now called the Chequers agreement and now, a week away from this Parliament adjourning for the summer recess, they have completely torn it apart by again pandering, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said, to 30 or 40 people on the hard right of the Conservative party. Those people would be being much more honest if they just stood up and said that they want the cliff-edge hard Brexit, rather than tabling amendments that drive a coach and horses through the agreement that the Government managed to reach.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the 163 independent members of the WTO are somehow teetering on a cliff edge or doing something rather odd? Are they not just normal trading nations that trade freely with each other? I find his “cliff edge” statement rather peculiar, because it does not treat the facts.
Ian Murray
I will tell the hon. Gentleman who is teetering on the cliff edge: the 10,000 or 12,000 people in my constituency who work in the financial services sector. The advice and analysis that we have had from the hon. Gentleman’s own Government’s Treasury is that staying in the customs union and the single market is the least worst option, and that the WTO route that he suggests would leave this country teetering on the edge of a GDP reduction of somewhere between 9% and 16%, depending on the part of the country. If that is a positive argument for taking us out of the EU, the country needs to be given a people’s vote on whether we are going down the right track.
The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) moved new clause 1. She did not really mention new clause 12, but it presents a customs union option that could provide a platform to unite the vast majority of this House. When the Division bell rings for the votes on new clause 36 and amendment 73, I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe that we should all go into the Lobby against them to show how many people in this House actually want to protect this country’s future prosperity and how many want to take away any future prosperity for their own narrow ideological needs. I say to my own Front-Bench team that when the Division bell rings I hope Labour votes against those amendments and makes a stand against what the hard-line right-wing Brexiteers are trying to do to our country.
There is absolutely no way we can achieve frictionless trade—what the Government want us to try to achieve—while putting in place policies that set hurdles in front of it. The amendments would mean no VAT alignment, but if there is no VAT alignment, there is no backstop. If there is no backstop, there is no withdrawal agreement. If there is no withdrawal agreement, we have to have a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. If that is the aspiration behind some of these amendments, we will in the future have to take a long hard look back at this point, when we are about to inflict the single largest act of self-harm to this country, to see what people were actually trying to achieve. The introductory remarks of the right hon. Member for Broxtowe on new clause 1 sum that situation up. She was attacked with pretty disgraceful remarks from some in her own party, but she was merely trying to put forward an argument that would prevent this country from doing economic damage to itself. What a remarkable thing to happen.
We have two Bills in front of us this week—tonight’s Bill and the Trade Bill tomorrow—and all the Government have to do is keep the customs union and the single market on the negotiating table. New clause 12 does not mean that the Government have to implement anything; it just asks them to keep the proposal on the table. That is what would be in this country’s best interests. I agree with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe that this Minister is one of the best in the Government. I disagree with the vast majority of things that he does, but he is courteous, intelligent and always answers questions in the best way possible. He cannot honestly be sitting there this evening ready to accept the four amendments thinking that that would be in the best interests not only of the country, but of the Chequers agreement that the Prime Minister managed to cobble together last Friday. We need Government Front Benchers with a bit of backbone to stand up for the interests of this country. By the time we go into the Division Lobby very late on Tuesday night to pass the Trade Bill—after the customs Bill before us has been passed—Government Front Benchers could then say that they have stood up to the hard right of this country and stopped economic Armageddon, and that they have done the right thing.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 37, which is in my name and those of my right hon and hon. Friends. I will press the new clause at the appropriate time. It would make it
“unlawful for Her Majesty’s Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain.”
The purpose is simple: it is to secure the future of the United Kingdom. I speak as a proud Unionist and a friend of Northern Ireland. I have had the honour of working closely with people across Northern Ireland, having been Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for seven years and, before that, a shadow Northern Ireland Minister for five years. Interestingly, I also co-chaired the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly for some five years. We have a lot to fight for in Northern Ireland.
This new clause would provide a guarantee that shows we value the Union and recognise the importance of strengthening it, but also acknowledge the importance and the value of our most important trading arrangement, the UK internal market. Above all, it would contribute to upholding the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and safeguard the Union for the future.
New clause 37 reinforces a view that I am confident is shared on both sides of the House, which is that we cannot accept a deal that would allow Northern Ireland to be considered a separate customs territory from Great Britain. I recognise that this is the view the Prime Minister has put at the forefront of our negotiations.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Will the hon. Gentleman reiterate the point that new clause 37 simply underlines and reaffirms what the Prime Minister has said from the Dispatch Box on four separate occasions? The hon. Gentleman is right to seek to nail this into the Bill because we might not always have the luxury of having a Unionist Prime Minister.
Mr Robertson
Of course I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I hope we always do have a Unionist Prime Minister. Many of us will be working towards that end for many, many years.
The Prime Minister said in December
“the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, will leave the EU customs union and the EU single market. Nothing in the agreement I have reached alters that fundamental fact.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 27.]
If nothing has changed, I am confident—and I understand it is the case—that the Government will support this amendment.
During the past two years, we have had many polarising debates on our withdrawal from the European Union, but this amendment is straightforward and should be supported by anyone who values and believes in the Union. This is not a matter of leave or remain; it is about protecting the Union and ensuring that any deal we secure with the European Union upholds the constitutional integrity of the UK.
As well as protecting Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the UK, new clause 37 is also about protecting the economy of Northern Ireland by securing our most important single market, the UK itself. There are no absolute figures, but estimates from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency suggest that external sales of goods and services between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK were worth £14 billion in 2016, which represents approximately 58% of Northern Ireland’s total external sales. To jeopardise that by subjecting Northern Ireland to extra border arrangements, effectively down the Irish sea, would be foolish.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister rightly rejected the European Commission’s proposed version of the backstop, which would have treated Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister has said a number of times, no UK Prime Minister could ever agree to it. I understand that is still the Government’s view.
New clause 37 does not look to tie the Government’s hands. Rather, it will galvanise the Government’s position on this issue and signal to the people of Northern Ireland that they will not be left behind or left out. The Irish border is being used as a red herring by the European Union. As the Prime Minister has agreed on a number of occasions, we cannot know what arrangements, if any, will be needed on the border until we know the details of any deal with the European Union. To think the opposite of that is to put the cart before the horse.
Her Majesty’s Government, the Irish Government and politicians of all colours in Northern Ireland have said that they do not want to see a hard border in Ireland. When we say “hard border,” we are not talking about troops being stationed along the border—that is not going to happen. Nor will whatever arrangements we reach with the EU provoke violence along the border—those years have surely gone.
What will happen, though, is what has been happening for a very long time. The two jurisdictions already have different laws, different currencies, different VAT rates, different levels of corporation tax, different fuel duties, different levels of tourism tax and different levels of air passenger duty, yet trade takes place. People cross the border each day, with some people crossing several times a day. Some checks are carried out at various places in the north and south, which is how it will continue to be, without the disruption to trade and to everyday life that some people predict.
There is, therefore, no need for discussions about the border in Ireland to hold up the wider trade talks with the European Union, nor is there any need to threaten Northern Ireland’s position within the UK or Northern Ireland’s economy during these talks. New clause 37 will ensure that will not be the case.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the backstop proposals for Northern Ireland are something no Prime Minister of the United Kingdom could ever agree to, and this new clause will enshrine that policy in law.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I support all those who have been arguing for continued membership of the customs union, and therefore I support new clause 1. It is clear from everything we have heard today that, if we are to avoid serious economic hardship, membership of the customs union is essential. Frankly, the wrecking ball that the hard Brexiteers would bring to British business and industry is pretty extraordinary, and all for what?
The Prime Minister had it pretty much right when she spelled out:
“We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly 3 times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets.”
She said that in April 2016, and I contend, as the Prime Minister herself is fond of saying, that nothing has changed.
In the brief time available to me, I will raise the issue of standards, particularly in relation to my amendment 71. Clause 8 sets out factors to which the Treasury must have regard when considering the rate of import duties that apply to goods. Those factors include the interests of UK consumers and the desirability of maintaining and promoting productivity and external trade.
Amendment 71 would add to those factors. First, it would add the interests of UK producers, particularly farmers. Secondly, it would add the desirability of ensuring that UK standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection are not undermined by imports produced to lower standards.
The Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions in February 2017, and many times since:
“We should be proud that in the UK we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world—indeed, one of the highest scores for animal protection in the world. Leaving the EU will not change that…we are committed to maintaining and, where possible, improving standards”.—[Official Report, 8 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 424.]
Similarly, we have heard the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say on many occasions that we need to maintain, and where possible enhance, environmental and animal welfare standards. However, if the UK is unable to protect its farmers from being undermined by lower-quality imports, those farmers are likely to find it hard to be competitive and to go further on improving their animal welfare and environmental standards. Accordingly, when negotiating new trade agreements, it will be vital that the UK insists on the inclusion of a clause permitting it to require imports to meet UK animal welfare and environmental standards. I have tabled an amendment to the Trade Bill to that effect.
If that were not to happen and we were to lose the principle of prohibiting products that do not meet our standards, we would need some kind of backstop, which is where amendment 71 comes in. It would give Ministers the power to place differential tariffs on imports. Imports that do not conform to UK welfare standards would be subject to tariffs high enough to safeguard UK farmers. It would ensure that UK farm businesses were not undermined by low-quality products and that UK consumers would be protected from goods of a lower standard—chlorine-washed chicken, ractopamine-fed pork and hormone-treated beef, to name but a few—through tariffs on imports that do not meet UK standards. These tariffs would effectively make the cost of these lower-welfare products an awful lot higher to protect our standards here in the UK.
Mr Fysh
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the value of trade defences in our armoury. Would she consider supporting new clause 36, which is essential if the UK is to be able to operate its own trade defence policy, because if the EU is not collecting our tariffs for us at our border, there will potentially be nothing we can do about that?
Caroline Lucas
I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s faith in our own Government continuing to keep higher standards. We have already heard clear criticisms of new clause 36 for many other reasons, including the way in which it drives a coach and horses through the kind of customs union that we want, so I will not be supporting new clause 36.
I was going on to give examples of ways in which food standards in the US are much lower than our own. Many may find the prospect of eating chlorine-washed chicken disturbing. Although there appears to be no clear scientific evidence that it poses a substantial risk to human health, it is linked to poor animal welfare on farms and at slaughter. Similarly, ractopamine is a feed additive used to promote growth in pigs, and its use is permitted in the United States, but prohibited in the EU. There is evidence that it has a detrimental impact on pig welfare, with the Humane Society of the United States stating that it
“causes death, lameness, stiffness, trembling and shortness of breath in farm animals”.
Concerns have been expressed about its impact on human health as well.
My amendment 71 would simply require the Treasury, when considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods, to have regard to the interests of UK producers, such as farmers and to the desirability of ensuring that UK standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection are not undermined by imports produced to lower standards. I will wrap up my comments about it there.
I am supporting a number of other measures, including that on dealing with impact assessments, which are vital when we talk about impacts on the economic situation in this country and on the Northern Ireland border. However, I just thought that it was important to put something on record in this debate about the impact on animal welfare and environmental standards, too.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
Let me start by saying that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that the Bills we are considering today and tomorrow are vital pieces of legislation. I rise to speak against new clauses 1 and 12, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry); new clause 6, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper); and new clause 11, which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
I speak as someone who voted remain in June 2016. However, having had time to study these matters at close hand, and having an objective, pragmatic and reasonable approach—I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe that being objective and pragmatic is vital—I believe that it would be a grave error to enter into a customs union with the EU while being outside the EU. I shall give five reasons why I believe that to be the case.
Greg Hands
I am going to carry on and explore this point. Because Turkey is not subject to that agreement, as it is not a member of the European Union, Turkey must negotiate its own trade agreement with counterparts. It is not obliged to do so, and various counterparts have agreed a trade agreement with the EU but not agreed one with Turkey.
Greg Hands
No, I am not giving way as I am going to explore my points in the available time.
The lesson here is that these partners will be less likely, in many ways, to do a deal with such an economy, and ours is the fifth largest economy in the world. If they can get access to that economy through a trade agreement with the EU such that Britain would be forced to lower its tariffs, the people they might want to speak to are more likely to be in Brussels than in London.
My second reason relates to the pursuit of an independent trade policy and trade agreements. If we are no longer setting our own tariffs and they are set by somebody else, that weakens our ability to have a trade negotiation and to come to a trade agreement—by definition, we have a lot less to offer.
Remarkably, the third area—trade remedies—has not been explored at all tonight. I am amazed that the Labour party wants us to join—I am not sure what the official Front-Bench view is, but I think it is this—a customs union with the EU. Who would do our trade defences? Trade defences are incredibly important; they are the topic de jour in the current disputes between the United States, China and other counterparts. If we were in a customs union, it would be likely that Brussels would be making the decisions on trade remedies that would apply to the UK. We would not have a seat at that table when those decisions, which would affect our industry, were being made. Moreover, it would be likely to be against WTO rules for Brussels to make decisions that might affect the UK, because under WTO rules, people have to show the impact on their own market, not somebody else’s. So it is not at all clear to me—
Greg Hands
I am going to use my three remaining minutes.
The fourth area—again, it is remarkable that Labour is ignoring this—is the potential regulation of the NHS and other public services. I think that Labour Members have forgotten the TTIP debates of four or five years ago. They got very agitated about TTIP and the prospect of granting access to the NHS and other key public services in this country via a EU trade agreement. Now they seem to be happy for the EU, through a customs union, to negotiate potential access to the NHS and our markets. Even worse, we would not have a seat at the table when that trade agreement was set up. I find it remarkable that the Labour party is prepared to do that.
My final point has also not been raised in this debate, but it is a vital aspect of the Bill: trade preferences for the developing world. Again, I think that there is cross-party support for this country doing more and better in this area. The Bill allows for the transition of the scheme of trade preferences, meaning that the UK will have its own scheme of trade preferences. It will transfer overnight the European Union GSP—generalised scheme of preferences—and GSP+ and include everything but arms. Crucially, there will be the ability to improve on that scheme. If we stay in a customs union with the European Union, we will strangle in its infancy that ability to do better than the European Union on trade preferences.
The Trade Ministers to whom I have spoken in the Governments of countries such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh—they are all really important markets for this country and really important friends—would welcome the UK having the ability to offer better access for their goods than the European Union currently does. I am not saying that we will make a policy decision today, but it is extremely important that the Bill contains the ability for us to do that, and it is an underrated aspect of the legislation. Whatever we think of the access currently offered by the European Union, I do not think that anybody would say that the UK would be unable to offer better access if we had our own preference scheme under the Bill. That has been neglected in this debate.
Whatever we think of the original decision in June 2016, it would be a grave error to enter into a customs union with the European Union. It is not just a question of formalities and practicalities at the border; there many other really important issues, such as trade remedies and trade preferences with the developing world, that make entering a customs union with the European Union a very bad idea. I very much support the Bill and urge the House to reject the new clauses.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I apologise for the fact that I had to attend a Statutory Instrument Committee, but I was present at the beginning and I am here now. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who brought us back to the detail of the Bill, which is where I wish to focus my remarks.
I was concerned that the proposed dumping methodology might not address the UK steel industry’s concerns, so I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) has tabled amendment 25. I am also pleased that the Government have engaged with Members from all parties and that last week, in response to a written parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), they underlined their commitment to
“protecting UK industry where it is suffering injury as a result of dumped imports.”
The Government went on to say that they would not allow that to happen and would use mechanisms for the calculation of dumping methods that, on the face of it, seem to have the support of industries such as steel and ceramics. I very much welcome the fact that the Government have listened and have worked with key industries during the Bill’s progress through Parliament.
I am less convinced by the situation in relation to the economic interest test. I was rather hoping that, in line with the rhetoric that we heard throughout the whole argument for leaving the European Union, we would take advantage of the opportunity that leaving the European Union offered to reduce any bureaucratic pressure on industries such as steel, rather than adding to their bureaucratic pressures. The economic interest test in the Bill adds extra layers compared with what currently exists in the European Union, so we have the genius of a Government bringing forward something even more complex than what we already have in the European Union. I did not think that was the purpose of what we were doing; perhaps I was naive.
In Committee, we expressed concerns about the proliferation of economic interest tests that have been built into the regime and that measures must pass before tariffs can be introduced. Of particular concern was the fact that such tests will first be conducted by the independent Trade Remedies Authority and then again by the Secretary of State, theoretically on a completely different basis. As such, we have pushed for the Secretary of State’s power in relation to the tests to be curtailed and at most to act as a sense-check on what the TRA has conducted. Anything more than that will introduce an unacceptable level of potentially political interference into the process. It will be an unnecessary block on what is happening. The real worry is that it will delay the introduction of trade remedies and thereby potentially subject industry to more damage. However, the Government have tabled amendments 103 and 108, which go some way towards addressing the concerns I have just outlined.
Government amendments 110 to 112 and 116 to 118 seek to deal with the replication of tests, but they would not do that sufficiently well, so I shall support amendment 21, tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which would achieve a better outcome.
Finally, let me say a little about safeguard measures and adjustment plans. I am concerned that the Government intend to require any industry that requests safeguard measures to submit adjustment plans to demonstrate how it will adjust to new market circumstances, before any safeguard investigation can be launched. In essence, that would require an industry to demonstrate what changes it was making to its operations, including efficiencies and rationalisations, before a safeguard investigation could even start. UK Steel and others have pointed out that in situations such as those we currently face in relation to US section 232 tariffs, such a requirement would be unjustified. Industry should not have to make major adjustments to deal with what is likely to be a temporary situation introduced by the non-WTO-compliant actions of another Government. I am therefore pleased that the Government have tabled amendment 113 to modify the requirement, allowing the TRA to waive the requirement when it deems it necessary or suitable. It would, though, be better if that pressure on industry—at a point at which it is already under significant pressure—were not there.
I wanted to put those concerns on the record so that the Government have the opportunity to make further improvements to the Bill as it makes progress in the other place and before it comes back to this House.
Craig Mackinlay
I rise to speak to amendment 73, tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and which I wish to move at the appropriate time.
It now has to be a settled will that in future we are not going to be in the, or a, customs union with the European Union. That became clear during the hours of debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in this place and the other place, and that Bill became an Act. It is clear in the Chequers deal and the White Paper on the future relationship. The statement “We will not be in the customs union” has passed through the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House and Mansion House speeches, and through her statements on the Floor of the House on occasions far too numerous to mention.
We are not to be in a customs union. That was clearly the compact with the public made by the Conservatives and the Labour party in their manifestos last year. It is clearly the will of the people, as expressed in the June 2016 referendum. I do not think there can be any doubt about the clarity, because it was mentioned by all involved in that debate, no matter what side they supported. It is clearly the will of the people, of the Prime Minister and of the Cabinet. Similarly, when we negotiated and passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, it was the will expressed by a majority of this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said earlier in an intervention that, were it necessary for there to be a customs union with some part of the world, there would need to be, at the right time, primary legislation that would also incorporate any requirements in the Government’s proposed new section 16A, which I am trying to nullify with amendment 73. I certainly hope that, given those settled wills, my amendment will be supported by the Government because anything else does not square with the manifesto on which we were elected and it certainly does not square with the manifesto on which the Labour party was elected either.
Craig Mackinlay
I will; I would enjoy continuing my speech so please intervene.
Craig Mackinlay
I am sorry, but that must have passed me by. I know that, to get around the difficulties that were caused by the tampon tax and the significant debate that we had in this Chamber, of which I was a part, the Government agreed to sort of equal the amount that was collected to pass it to charity. So it seems bizarre that we have not taken the steps that are available.
The other thing about going along with the VAT directives and how VAT is managed is that we have been subject to the missing trader intra-community fraud, the so-called carousel fraud, which cost this country £1.7 billion last year. It is estimated to cost the EU as a whole into the tens of billions of pounds. Over the period of the administration of VAT in its current form, it could have cost anything up to £100 billion across the EU. Are we really saying that these failed systems are something that we want to be attached to in perpetuity?
The Prime Minister has said very clearly that we will be in control of our tax policy. Just last week, following Chequers, the Secretary of State for the Environment also confirmed that we cannot actually set our own taxes as we would wish to at the moment because VAT is set in accordance with EU rules. That is another area in which we will be sovereign. Amendment 73 would make sure that, no matter what the future holds, primary legislation will be needed to do this. We cannot have the vestiges of some of the worst VAT rules that anybody could ever imagine remaining on our statute book. For that reason and given that powerful debate on the tampon tax, I certainly hope that others across this House will support that amendment this evening.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
When we had the referendum result, and given the bitterness that existed during the referendum, I had absolutely no doubt that, despite the overwhelming vote, we were going to see guerrilla warfare conducted against the will of the people of the United Kingdom. We have seen it over the past year and a half—fall-outs in this place and fall-outs in TV studios, newspapers and so on. The amendments to this Bill fall into one of those two categories. People will give a whole variety of reasons, but, basically, they want to move amendments to this Bill to keep us in the institutions of the EU, which has bound us for so many years and from which people voted to be free. On the other side, there are those who wish to remain true to the vote of the people and make sure that everything is done to deliver on the promises that were made during the referendum.
Unfortunately, Northern Ireland, which has featured in nearly every speech here tonight, has been caught in the crossfire of that guerrilla warfare between those who wish to keep us in the EU and those who wish to honour the result of the referendum. The Northern Ireland border, the Good Friday agreement and the peace in Northern Ireland have been thrown around willy-nilly. To be quite frank, the people of Northern Ireland feel abused in this whole process. I have heard people in this place talk about the Belfast agreement as if it were their bedtime reading. They probably do not even know what the document looks like.
It has been suggested that if we do not abide by those who wish to keep us in the customs union and the single market, we will have a hard border in Northern Ireland, which will affect the peace. I do not know what this hard border will look like, but I can tell Members one thing: if they think that a couple of border posts along the main road at Newry, the main road into Londonderry and the main road into Enniskillen will represent a hard border that will somehow protect the EU from the incursion of goods that they do not want, then they do not even understand what it means. It could be that they think that a hard border means a minefield around the border with watchtowers so that no lorries can sneak across the 300 or so roads, or that people cannot build sheds in the middle of field where they put goods in one side in Northern Ireland and they come out the other side in the Irish Republic. It is a ridiculous suggestion, yet it is thrown at us all the time.
We heard the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) talk about the impact on the border and that the World Trade Organisation would insist on the provisions because it would have to protect trade. The Irish Republic currently brings in goods from the rest of the world. Does it stop every container that comes in? No, it does not. Does it stop 10% of the containers? No, it does not. It does not even stop 1%. In fact, Gambia stops more trade coming through its borders than the Irish Republic stops. The idea that, somehow or other, every good that comes into the EU via Northern Ireland and then the Republic will have to be stopped does not even match with common-day practice.
When it comes to collecting taxes, 13,000 lorries a year cross the border carrying drink to other parts of the United Kingdom. There is duty to be collected on that, but not one of them is stopped because the duty is collected electronically through pre-notification and trusted trader status. We can protect the border and meet WTO rules without having all the kinds of paraphernalia suggested here tonight.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; there seem to be an awful lot of people who do not really understand what goes on at the border now. Why would anyone who supports Northern Ireland even think of voting against new clause 37 tonight? The new clause clearly puts it out there that we want Northern Ireland to be treated the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom, so in voting against it, people would actually be supporting the Republic of Ireland.
Sammy Wilson
That is the whole point of new clause 37. First, it would deliver on the promises made by the Government; it puts those promises into law. Secondly, it would avoid the break-up of the United Kingdom and the kind of nonsense that we are going to hear from the Scottish National party—that we can redefine the United Kingdom to exclude Northern Ireland when it comes to trade issues. Of course, that would be against the Belfast agreement, because the Belfast agreement does not actually say a great deal about borders, but it says a lot about the integrity of the United Kingdom—that it cannot be changed by diktat from the EU or by demands from Dublin. It can only be changed with the will of the people of Northern Ireland. Yet the suggested backstop arrangement is at the behest of the EU, which seems to disregard the most important part of the Belfast agreement and has destabilised Northern Ireland as a result.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is of course right that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland has not been in dispute for a very long time and is underlined by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. People have only started talking about the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit. That is the only thing that has now started to trigger any discussion around the break-up of the United Kingdom, and I am afraid that his party has helped that process.
Sammy Wilson
That is the point that I am making—that this red herring has been thrown into the debate to try to persuade people like me and Government Members to stay within the customs union and the single market. It is a red herring because, as I have said, it is not essential to have a hard border to protect trade between the United Kingdom outside the EU and the Irish Republic inside the EU. Other methods are currently used. We have a fiscal border, a regulatory border and a currency border. We do not need checks at the moment, so why would that change once we leave the EU?
The third thing about new clause 37 is that it would actually strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand. When she goes into negotiations, Barnier and Co. will still be badgering her and insisting that there has to be a different regime of regulation, law and EU interference in Northern Ireland. It will strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand to be able to say that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has said in law, “We will not and cannot change the status of Northern Ireland. We cannot have separate customs arrangements for Northern Ireland and the law says that.”
New clause 37 would also protect Northern Ireland from being cut off from its biggest market. The Irish Republic is not our biggest market. The whole EU is not our biggest market. Over 60% of the produce of Northern Ireland comes to Great Britain. Ironically, if the Government in Dublin were thinking with their head, they would recognise that the Barnier formula for the border is also detrimental to the Irish Republic, because it would mean having a border down the Irish sea, cutting the Irish Republic off from its biggest market. Over 50% of its agricultural products come here, yet it is concerned about the paltry border that counts for 1.6% of its trade. People just fail to understand why this should be the case and why the Government of the Republic should take that view.
The Prime Minister has an opportunity. New clause 37 would strengthen her hand in the negotiations coming up to October. She still has the opportunity to tell the EU, “If you want our money, give us a fair deal. We’ll prepare for a no deal if we can’t get a good deal. The balance of trade rests with us. If you want access to our markets, make sure that we get access to your markets.” That should be the approach. Get the handbag out, do a bit of swinging and get a good deal.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who has put on the record a great deal of fact and truth about the way in which the Northern Ireland issue has been treated in the negotiations and by the negotiating parties. What he missed out in his remarks was that this was not an issue until the Varadkar Government were elected. The expectation was that there would be an invisible customs frontier in Northern Ireland. That was confirmed by Bertie Ahern when he gave interviews on the subject. It was confirmed by the head of the Irish customs organisation when he gave evidence to the Irish Dáil. It was confirmed by Jon Thompson, the head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, when he initially gave evidence to the Treasury Committee. This was not an issue until it was made an issue.
We are being asked to believe two extraordinary things. The first is that the Irish Republic itself might put infrastructure at the border of Northern Ireland, when the only reason that the Irish Republic recognises that there is a frontier between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is that it signed the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement. Secondly, when President Juncker appeared in front of the Dáil a few months ago and was pressed to give an assurance that he would not force the Republic to put infrastructure at the border, he more or less gave that assurance. In fact, it was perfectly clear that he was not going to say, “We will force you to put infrastructure at the border,” so it is clear that the EU is not going to force anyone to put infrastructure at the border.
It is still the policy of the Government that we might leave even without a withdrawal agreement, on WTO terms. Under such circumstances, we will not put any infrastructure at the Irish border in Northern Ireland, and we will challenge the Irish Republic and the EU Commission not to do the same in the interests of peace in Northern Ireland. It is perfectly possible to manage an infrastructure-free customs frontier in Northern Ireland, and that is what will happen. It is pure obstinacy on the part of the Commission that it will not negotiate with the United Kingdom a free trade agreement on the basis of making an agreement with the whole United Kingdom, instead of excluding Northern Ireland.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is making some very good points. I certainly do not argue that we should be members of customs union, but the Freight Transport Association recently gave the example of a situation whereby a trailer full of 40 different consignments goes from Birmingham to Belfast, and then goes into 40 different white vans in Belfast. How does my hon. Friend propose that we would meet our responsibility to pay customs in such a situation?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am immensely grateful. May I encourage the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) to draw his remarks to a close? He is within his time, but a lot of other people want to speak and I am being pressed by people who, quite understandably, want time. If the hon. Gentleman—with his brilliant eloquence and pithiness—could wrap up in a minute or two, that would be marvellous.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to answer my hon. Friend’s point, I think that we have to be practical. There will be a change in the way in which people treat consignments because they are crossing a customs frontier, but as the technology develops it will be possible to track individual consignments or multiple consignments in trucks across customs frontiers. We have discussed this matter with Revenue and Customs in this country. Ultimately, in future—looking ahead 10 or 20 years—the idea of customs frontiers existing between countries that trade tariff-free will become obsolete. To hinge our entire Brexit policy on the issue of not having customs declarations and customs frontiers is very last century, and we should not be captured by that.
My remarks are directed primarily at amendment 72, which I confess has turned out to be disappointingly uncontroversial. It was the intention of the European Research Group, a group of Conservative Back Benchers, to table four amendments—one or two of them in the light of the Chequers agreement and the White Paper—to test our understanding of the intention of Government policy. Every single one of our amendments, we believe, reflects Government policy. I do not imagine that the Government would have accepted any of them as calmly as they have if they did not reflect Government policy.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My right hon. and learned Friend, who seems to be becoming a remainer again, judging from his article in the Evening Standard—
Sir Bernard Jenkin
No, that is what he said. He said that we will have to rethink Brexit completely if we cannot get a satisfactory arrangement. That is the direction he is going in. I respect his view, but throwing around insults like “useless” is not elevating the debate.
My amendment 72 simply removes from the Bill an extraordinarily powerful Henry VIII provision that we should be signed up to a customs union with the European Union simply by order. Following the amendment that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) tabled to clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, I thought that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I do not suppose that I shall hear him speak against my amendment, because it puts Parliament back in control of the decision to join a customs union with the European Union. That is what I think we should do.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I end on this one point, Mr Speaker. We have heard a lot about 40 MPs having an excessive amount of influence in this Chamber. In fact, 17.4 million people voted leave in the referendum, and 70% of Conservative MPs and 60% of Labour MPs represent leave constituencies. It would be bizarre if, in the end, the House of Commons, which was elected predominantly on leave manifestos, put up road blocks against leaving the European Union, and I do not believe that it will.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. The time limit will have to be reduced, with immediate effect, to five minutes.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I wish to speak to new clause 11 and against amendment 73.
Last week, we had a debate in Westminster Hall in which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is back in his place, advised me that everything would become clear when the White Paper was published. I am afraid that for me, 70 minutes before we are going to vote, Government policy is still not quite clear. I am going to ask the Minister a few questions in the hope that we might get some clarification from him. I am interested in the interrelationship between the Bill and the White Paper, which was published last week.
Contrary to what some right hon. and hon. Members wish to say, the common market, which is the customs union, is fantastically popular with the public. Whenever I ask my constituents, “What do you dislike about Europe?”, they say, “Being bossed around”, and “The immigration.” When I say, “What do you like about it?”, they say, “Oh, we love the common market.” Well, of course, the common market is the customs union. When I talk to industrialists, what they want—in the words of GlaxoSmithKline, which employs 1,000 people in my constituency—is “no disruption”. PPG Industries, which is a supplier to Airbus, wants a common rule book. When I spoke this morning to the North East chamber of commerce, it said that 90% of its members want to stay in the customs union. We know that legally speaking that is not possible, so we have to have a new one that will give them the “exact same benefits”.
I am not clear about whether the Bill facilitates the customs approach that is set out in the White Paper. Nor am I clear about which of the Government’s amendments have made changes to the Bill that will enable them to undertake the facilitated customs arrangement that they have described in the White Paper. Nor am I clear—I very much hope that the Minister will be able to explain this; I am sure that he now will be—about whether the Government’s proposed acceptance of amendments from the ERG means that they are abandoning the facilitated customs arrangement as their opening position or that they are still holding to it. If they are still holding to it, I would suggest that it is not wholly practical. It will need a tracking system so that when people import goods, they know where their final use is going to be. This is a whole new bureaucratic system. It means that people who import will have to have information along the supply chain that, at the moment, is of no concern to them. The White Paper says that there is going to be a formula so that we can follow the proportions from the past year, but what if things change from one year to another? Then people will have to make their rebates on the basis of new, fresh information in real time. It sounds very much as though we are going to have not only VAT but VAT mark 2.
Paragraph 20 on page 18 of the White Paper says:
“This could include looking to make it easier for traders to lodge information…This could include exploring how machine learning and artificial intelligence could allow traders to automate…This could…include exploring how allowing data sharing across borders”
would work. It could include rather a lot of things. I can only imagine officials saying to Ministers when they were drafting this, “This does seem to involve rather a lot of imagination.” It does not seem to be bottomed out. I would much prefer it if we could go along the path set out by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in new clause 11, because what is being proposed will be horrendously bureaucratic and an open invitation to smuggling.
Mr Grieve
There is one matter on which I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and that is that this piece of legislation is needed if we are leaving the EU. That is the first basic point that needs to be made in considering this Bill on Report.
Then one has to consider why the Report stage becomes so controversial. The difficulty is that throughout the whole of this Brexit process, we are collectively going through an exercise in both deception and self-deception about the implications of leaving the European Union and the sort of relationship we may have thereafter.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has produced a White Paper. It is far from perfect. It, too, continues with some of those obfuscations, I have to say. To give an example—I know that this has irritated many of my right hon. and hon. Friends—it talks about the common rulebook and then says, “Don’t worry—we will be escaping the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.” We may escape its jurisdiction, but I am the first to accept that the reality is that we are going to be bound by its jurisprudence, without any ability to influence how that jurisprudence develops. That is one of the costs that we are paying as a result of deciding to leave.
In exactly the same way, there are other costs that come from leaving and that we tend to brush under the carpet, including the economic costs that are going to come to this country. If we are going to make rational choices, we need to avoid continuing with exercises in self-deception. The reason I think it right to support the Prime Minister on the White Paper is that despite all the difficulties she has had, this represents the first sensible document to found a proper negotiation. I wish her well with it, even if I have criticisms of it, worry about the absence of services and a common market for that, and worry about some of its other aspects; nevertheless, it is well-intentioned.
Then I look at the four amendments tabled by some of my hon. Friends—36, 37, 72 and 73. The first thing to be said about them is that one—the one about Northern Ireland—correctly identifies an obfuscation that the Government have been practising for a considerable time. We and the European Commission are talking different languages when it comes to the backstop. I have no difficulty emphasising the fact that no Parliament of the United Kingdom is ever going to support a backstop that goes simply for Northern Ireland alone.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clauses 1, 11 and 12, and very much in support of a customs union.
I was surprised by the way the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), described the border between Detroit and Ontario, which I was lucky enough to visit in February with fellow members of the International Trade Committee. I witnessed something slightly different from what he witnessed. I did see friction—even on a very cold, icy day, people spent considerable time at the border. There is an X-ray building for pantechnicons, and vehicles are frequently taken out of queues to be examined. The situation there is not as simple as he suggested. To underline that—perhaps he is not aware of this—Canada is having to invest in a second bridge across the river between Ontario and Detroit to safeguard its businesses because of the delays they suffer.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), for whom I have huge respect. He described the great fear associated with what seems to be the pursuit of ideological goals or indeed personal ambition on the part of certain individuals. Importantly, for almost a year I have been trying to encourage businesses—the likes of Jaguar Land Rover in my constituency and others—to speak out. Businesses are terrified of doing that because they fear incurring the wrath of the public. They see it not as their responsibility but as ours, as elected representatives. However, in recent weeks, they have felt it necessary to speak out, and of course we have heard from Airbus and Jaguar Land Rover. On the rare occasions they speak, they do so softly, but it is important that we and the public listen to them.
It is far more important for us to listen to the likes of Jaguar Land Rover and BMW-Mini than—dare I say it?—to the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). I think the public are beginning to see that—and to recognise that, among all the debate that goes on in this place, those business voices are starting to provide some clarity.
Businesses have waited for more than two years for the Government to give them some sort of direction in the face of uncertainty, which is a threat to them. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). I respect him and his experience, but disruption and uncertainty are the greatest concerns for businesses, which have been reviewing their options for the past 24 months. Irrespective of where we end up in the coming weeks, they are already making decisions and looking at options abroad for future investment.
Anything that makes life difficult for businesses—anything that adds cost and time—makes them review their options and consider what is in their best interest. In the automotive sector and many others, businesses would not be so obviously viable if they had to incur the cost of additional tariffs under WTO rules. They will review a 10% or 4.5% tariff, cost it in and think, “Is it really best for us to stay in the UK?”
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend speaks with great experience on these matters. Does he agree that small businesses may not be able to accommodate the additional costs he mentions from tariffs, rules of origin—we discussed those earlier—and customs declarations, which may exceed the profits they make on the goods they sell? Small and medium-sized enterprises would be most adversely affected by a no deal situation, which some Government Members argue we should contemplate with equanimity.
Matt Western
My right hon. Friend is right that SMEs, particularly in the component supply chain, are the most vulnerable to these sorts of changes. They are the most likely either to lose business elsewhere or to have to move abroad. I can give concrete examples where that has already taken place.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe described the apparent view that the customs union is some sort of problem holding us back. He is right that it has not held us back. The likes of Germany, which exports 10 times more to China than we do, are in the customs union, which has not been to their disadvantage. As he said, we have witnessed the most phenomenal explosion in the success of the automotive industry in this country over the past 10 years—after 20 years of relative stagnation, it grew by more than 50% in that period.
In summary, where it is rare for businesses to speak out, we should listen. They do not intervene lightly in politics, in this country or elsewhere. The preservation of a true customs union is critical to safeguarding business and investment in this country, and that is why I support new clauses 1, 11 and 12.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
I should say first that I recognise the importance of the Bill and why it is necessary if we are leaving the European Union. However, many of the amendments reflect the fact that, regrettably, the White Paper simply does not represent the clearcut, deliverable strategy that I believe our country needs—it is a fudge.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) set out, remainers question why we are accepting so many rules while forfeiting the right to sit at the table where they are decided. I know that many of my colleagues who campaigned strongly to leave are equally unhappy and believe, with some merit, that people who voted leave in the referendum are simply not getting the kind of Brexit they feel would give our country the clean break it needs if it is going to be successful.
I spent a long time in business before I came to this place, and I know that if a strategy is to be successful, it needs to be clearcut and one that everyone can get behind. I may not agree with some of my colleagues about what the best strategy is, and I may not want to leave on WTO rules, but in the context of the White Paper it is important for us to listen to colleagues who are respected on this issue—perhaps none more so than my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Of course, he has been at the forefront of this deal’s development for the past two years, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), whom I think we would all describe as ever-resourceful. Both took principled decisions to leave the Government, and I respect that. I know from my own circumstances that such decisions are not easy, but I also fully understand why they took them.
There might, in practice, be three practical options for our country’s way forward, but I believe that, in reality, there are only two clear strategies, and therefore only two paths to take if we are to achieve a successful Britain in the long term. Of course, both paths have pros and cons, and although there are passionate views on both sides, it is important that we debate these, as far as possible, in a measured way.
But the Prime Minister has now presented us with a third way—a compromise between the other two pathways. I understand the Government’s desire to achieve compromise, but I genuinely believe that the White Paper demonstrates that, in reality, our choice is between either one approach or the other. It is vital that we have a realistic, clearcut strategy that can actually be delivered. If we have a plan that we cannot deliver, it is not a plan. Regrettably, the White Paper attempts to ride two horses, and that never works.
It is on that basis that I have said that this deal is the worst of all worlds, and in the end it will please no one. It is probably the worst outcome we can get. It keeps nobody happy at all. Whether one accepts my arguments or those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), for example, both paths have pros and cons, but both represent clear routes forward that are genuine strategies for our country.
My concern is that this place has reached stalemate. As this debate exemplifies, there are still deep divisions in people’s views, and I think we understand why. My view now is that, because of that stalemate, it is time for the British public to have the final say on the clear approaches we face on Brexit. We absolutely must settle this now if we are to move beyond Brexit and get on to the vital issues facing our country such as housing, a lack of social mobility and social care. That is what we should be aiming to do. I do not believe that we should have a compromise that simply has to be reopened and renegotiated later. I have reached my conclusion on the Chequers deal, and I know that colleagues will look more closely at it in the coming days. I leave Members to think on these words:
“Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both directions.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Several Members, all on the same side of the House, wish to speak. I suggest that the time limit be now reduced to four minutes, but it is not obligatory for Members to consume all four.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I first thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for making what I thought was a remarkably gracious speech, in quite a fevered atmosphere, and for putting both sides of the case so generously and kindly?
I want to speak to the four new clauses and amendments that I have supported and, in most cases, put my name to. They are broadly in line with Government policy, which is why the Government have accepted them. New clause 37 relates to the Northern Ireland question. It is clearly Government policy that Northern Ireland should not be removed from the rest of the United Kingdom, and I think that to put that in legislation would be beneficial.
Amendment 72 relates to Henry VIII clauses. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—or “beacon’s field”, as Benjamin Disraeli pronounced it—that we should not have Henry VIII clauses if we can possibly avoid them, as they are not good legislative practice. The fewer Henry VIII clauses we have, the better. I confess that I would have supported my right hon. and learned Friend in earlier Bills had I not thought that, in so doing, I would have caused suspicion on the other side of the European debate, with people wondering what on earth I was up to. However, I am very pleased that Henry VIII clauses are becoming less popular in the House.
Amendment 73 has been a topic of discussion in relation to no EU VAT regime. This is actually Government policy, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on “The Andrew Marr Show”, when he said that once we had left the European Union we would not be part of the EU VAT regime. The difference here is between acquisition VAT and import VAT. Import VAT is the normal way we charge VAT on third countries outside the European Union, whereas acquisition VAT is an EU system. Therefore, if we are leaving, it makes absolute sense to be out of this, and that fits with what the Government have said.
Mr Leslie
I do not quite see how the hon. Gentleman can say that that is compatible with the Government’s policy, given that the Chequers White Paper, which was published only last Thursday, states:
“To ensure that new declarations and border checks between the UK and the EU do not need to be introduced for VAT and Excise purposes, the UK proposes the application of common cross-border processes and procedures for VAT and Excise”.
How is his proposal in any way compatible with Government policy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can merely appeal to how this was set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who said that we would not be part of the EU’s VAT regime. VAT is not collected at the border; it is collected via statements from people who import and then send in returns in relation to their VAT. This would enforce a uniform system across all our VAT collection—that is the purpose. If a Minister states that that is Government policy, it is good enough for me, and if it is Government policy to have that in law, it seems quite sensible. Therefore, not having a clause that is contradictory to Government policy simply flows from that.
I want to focus on new clause 36, which has attracted the most controversy in this debate. The importance of the new clause is that it would actually allow the Government to run their trade policy. Trade remedies, which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), would not be possible if the new clause were not implemented, because that position would simply allow for goods to be imported into the UK via other EU member states and not subject to any anti-dumping measures that we might have taken.
Right hon. and hon. Members might be aware that in 2016 we bought £42 billion-worth of imports from Holland and £26 billion-worth of imports from Belgium. That was not entirely clogs and chocolates; it was, in fact, re-imports of goods that had come through the major ports in the low countries and through to the United Kingdom. That is a major gateway of goods into the EU that then come to the UK. If we have our own trade policy, we must be able to ensure that those goods are subject to our duties, in terms of revenue collection and protection, but also in terms of anti-dumping measures, if we choose to take them. Otherwise, we would find that we were simply following anti-dumping measures implemented by the European Union and had no independent policy.
The point of reciprocity also seems to me to be fair. If we are to say to the European Union, “We will collect your taxes and remit them to you,” that is potentially a large amount of money to be sending to the European Union, giving up all the duties that would fall to us as a result of goods entering the 27 remaining member states. Should we really be affording to do that? What is happening to that revenue, in terms of our independent trade policy, not if we want anti-dumping measures, but if we want to lower prices?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Djanogly
Let me start by saying that, to my mind, the European Research Group’s amendments are clearly aimed at restricting the Government’s ability to negotiate, if indeed they are compatible with the White Paper at all—a White Paper that I support. Amendment 73 and new clause 36 certainly fall into that category. I think that they have been tabled by those who wish to create such difficulties and red lines that we are forced into a hard Brexit, ostensibly by default but secretly by design. They will not have my support tonight.
I want to address the claims of those who say that we do not want the FCA, or indeed a customs union, because we cannot then strike our own trade deals. I note that the Government maintain that we should be able to separate goods from services, but others caution against that because goods and services are often so intrinsically linked that it is unrealistic. I will wait to see the EU’s position.
However, on the central issue of negotiating our own FTAs, I think that we need to question the benefits that so many seem to be taking for granted. First, we need to appreciate that the Department for International Trade is currently acting like something of a Jekyll and Hyde character—on the one hand the Secretary of State is talking about bravely striding around the world seeking new FTAs with countries such as the US and China, but on the other he is pleading with the EU and about 70 third-party countries to roll over the existing 40 or so FTAs that the EU now has with them. So, with more than one third of the world’s countries, Brexit represents the chance at best to get the same deal as from the EU. From the look of things, we may yet get a worse deal in some cases as those third countries start evaluating the decreased advantage of dealing with 50 million rather than 500 million people.
Secondly, there is little evidence that business sees any advantage in customs differentiation—indeed, quite the opposite. The vast majority see advantages in our customs negotiating position, which emanates from the power of the huge trading bloc that the EU represents, and will wish in any event to stick as closely as possible to whatever trading position the EU takes.
Thirdly, world trade is much more interlinked and complex than most people discuss. For example, some of the existing trade agreements that we want to roll over, such as those with Canada and South Korea, feature most favoured nation clauses. Therefore, if we agree a FTA with the USA that offers better terms than those we agreed with Canada, Canada would need to be offered the same. The advantages of being outside the customs union are thus much reduced in any event, and talk of becoming a colony or vassal state is ridiculous.
Fourthly, we live in a world of trading deals where size matters. Rather than discussing a trade deal with the US, we have become caught up in a trade battle. Again, if we were in a customs union, we would have more cover.
Finally, the process of negotiating new FTAs is a long and arduous business. The average time is seven years; Canada took 15 years. Bargaining is tough and based on potential market clout. That goes back to the possibility of US chlorinated chickens and so forth. We need—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I could always listen at length, but we must move on.
Kevin Hollinrake
I want to speak against new clause 1, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) tabled.
Among many points my constituents have made to me in the past few weeks, they have asked why the House cannot work together on Brexit. I suppose the simple answer is that our biggest challenge—what divides us most—is not acceptance of the result of the referendum on 23 June 2016, but its practical interpretation as the basis for our future relationship with the EU.
Parliament is bound by our promise on Brexit, but perhaps it also needs to accept some key principles, which reflect the promises that were made during the referendum campaign. Where better to look for those promises than the voice of the official body that argued for Brexit—Vote Leave? On trade, the Vote Leave manifesto was clear:
“We take back the power to make our own trade deals”.
On that basis, it is clear that we must not remain part of a customs union as that would prevent us from directly negotiating and implementing trade deals. It is therefore strange that being part of a customs union seems to be Labour party policy, which goes right against the clear mandate that the people gave us.
There were other commitments in the Vote Leave manifesto, for example,
“one thing which won’t change is our ability to trade freely with Europe.”
On that basis, it is fair for businesses, and the people whose jobs rely on those businesses, to assume that nothing will change. Of course, Members have made the point that other countries manage to have just-in-time supply chains when they have a customs border, but most countries have not been part of a trading environment for 44 years in which they have not carried the burden of those complexities.
We know from Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage that businesses have a choice to station themselves here or move jobs to other parts of the EU because extra costs will ensue if they do not: costs for customs checks and for checks on standards. I believe that staying part of a customs union is not consistent with the mandate that the people gave us, but that the White Paper, as articulated by the Prime Minister, deals with our obligation to leave the EU while also minimising the costs of comparative advantage. The House should support it.
Charlie Elphicke
In the referendum campaign, the Home Office told my constituents that the jungle would move from Calais to Dover. The former Prime Minister said that there would be queues of lorries and gridlock on the way to Dover—a mantra that the Labour party took up. The Treasury told my constituents that they would lose their jobs and their homes to boot in a calamitous disaster.
Despite that level of fear, my constituents believed in the opportunity that lay before them. Two thirds voted to leave the EU. Why? Because they believed in the kind of opportunities and the kind of Britain that we can build. They believed in better. They believed in the future, in our sense of nationhood and independence and in the country that we could build: independent and out in the wide world. It is important to remember that, because change does not come easily; it takes political courage.
Our voters have shown more courage than far too many Members of this House, who fear change and are afraid of grasping opportunities and what the world offers. Our voters better understand the need for that courage. They can look at the figures and see that the EU has been in relative decline in the past few decades, going from 30% to just 15% of GDP. [Interruption.] The spokesman for Brussels, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), does not like those figures, but they are true. Our voters also know that 90% of future economic growth in the world will come from outside the EU. That is why it is so important to believe in better, back our constituents and make a success of Britain out in the world—a global Britain.
Vicky Ford
We are leaving the EU and that means that we need to have a new relationship with the single market and the customs union—we cannot carry on as we were before. However, leave voters were told time and again that trade would continue and that having customs clarity was important to that trade.
I want to dispel some myths. First, zero-tariff regimes are not the same as no-tariff regimes. A no-tariff regime, which we have now, means no customs declaration and no rules of origin. A zero-tariff regime means both. That is why I am glad that the White Paper says that we will have no customs declarations and no rules of origin.
On myth two, we do not need to be in a customs union to resolve the rules of origin issue. That can be done through a PEM convention. On myth three, being in a single rulebook on goods does not stop us from doing trade deals with other parts of the world—just look at Switzerland. On myth four, trading on World Trade Organisation rules means that there will have to be a goods border in Ireland, otherwise the UK will breach our agreements with other trading partners, as will the EU. On myth five, just-in-time delivery of goods coming from China, which takes four weeks at sea, is not the same as just-in-time delivery across the channel.
I support some of the amendments. New clause 37 on no hard border in the Irish sea makes sense. Amendment 72 also makes sense. However, I am concerned about amendment 73. I do not like the EU VAT regime, but we need more clarity on that. On new clause 36, I agree we need a balanced approach on tax collection, but how it is worded is very unclear. I do not understand how the word “reciprocity” works in a legal framework when it is country to country versus us to EU. There needs to be a much clearer legal basis.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I want to focus on trade remedies. This is particularly important for the ceramic sector in my constituency, so I am absolutely delighted that the Government have listened to the arguments I have been making over the past year and secured clarifying amendments on trade remedies that, critically, will deliver the right Brexit for the ceramic sector, for wider manufacturing industry, and, most importantly, for the workforce and the voters of Stoke-on-Trent.
The Government have tabled several critical amendments. I was very pleased last week to have an answer to a written question providing confirmation on establishing normal value. That is so important to resisting the dumping of ceramic products from China. Significant state subsidisation by China, particularly in the ceramics industry, threatens British industry, so I am pleased that the Government have listened to those arguments and, through their amendments, have taken action.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Given that there may not be a Third Reading, I will start very briefly with some thank yous. I would like to thank Scott Taylor, one of our researchers. I would also like to thank the work of the Public Bill Office, particularly that of Colin Lee and Gail Poulton, who have been absolutely excellent in their support to all of us who have been here throughout the passage of the Bill.
I want to talk about the history of the Bill and how we got to this point. We had the Committee stage earlier this year. On the Saturday morning after it finished, and almost out of the blue, the UK Government announced that they would not be entering into a customs union. They clearly did not think it through, bringing out the announcement at the most stupid time: after all the debates in Committee. It was totally ill-thought-out.
We then had the Chequers agreement on 6 July. The White Paper was published on 12 July, which Members will note was the day after the amendments were tabled to this Report stage of the Bill—we all had to table our amendments before we had actually seen the White Paper. I thank the Minister for coming to Westminster Hall to give us some level of reassurance, but pretty much all the reassurance he could give was, “Please look at the White Paper that’s coming out on Thursday.” It has, therefore, been really difficult to prepare for the Bill. It has been really difficult to write this speech, trying to game exactly what is going to happen tonight. I am still not clear.
There are too many factions in this House. We have the UK Government, the Conservative remainers, the European Research Group, the Democratic Unionist party, the Labour leavers, the Labour remainers and the Labour Front Bench. The UK Government will not support things put forward by anybody who supports remain. The Labour Front Bench will not support anything put forward by the Conservative remainers. The members of the ERG will not support anything put forward by anybody except themselves. The Democratic Unionist party will support whatever the UK Government tell it to, on the basis that it is being paid to do so. It is a complete shambles. Trying to do anything sensible in this House is incredibly difficult, especially given that we know there is a majority for a customs union among the Members of this House. Despite that, we are going to end up in a situation where members of the ERG, who believe in the polar opposite of a customs union, are having their amendments accepted. When the rest of us put forward anything vaguely sensible, our amendments are not accepted.
This is certainly not about sovereignty for the people or sovereignty for Parliament; it is about sovereignty for a very small group of elite Tories who want to have their say. The Government are letting them have their say. I could not be more angry about the fact that the ERG’s amendments are apparently going to be accepted. I do not want to direct all my ire at those on the Government Front Bench. Those on the Labour Front Bench need to be absolutely clear on their position. They need to be clear that they will support the softest possible Brexit. If they are talking about a jobs-first Brexit, they need to recognise the benefits of the customs union and the single market. They have the opportunity to do that tonight by supporting some of the amendments that have been tabled by those who support a soft Brexit.
The Scottish National party does not support fully a number of amendments that we plan to vote for tonight. Our position is that Scotland voted to remain in the EU, so we would like to remain in the EU. Scotland supports remaining in the single market and the customs union, so the SNP will support anything that keeps us in the single market and the customs union. In the absence of those options being on the table, we will do what we can to protect the economic and cultural interests of the whole United Kingdom. Even though some of the amendments are not brilliant, we will vote for anything that makes Brexit slightly softer than the Brexit that is being proposed. I needed to make it clear that just because we support an amendment here does not mean that it is a preferred option. It means that it is not quite as bad as some of the other options.
I make it clear that I will press new clause 16, in my name and the names of my colleagues, and I would also like to speak in favour of our other amendments. The SNP position is crystal clear, as I said. The UK Government position is not. I welcome some clarity that is given in the White Paper that was published after Chequers, but I have major concerns about some of it. It mentions specifically a trusted trader scheme. On the trusted trader scheme that we have—the authorised economic operator scheme—I have raised concern after concern about it, and I am not the only one; organisations such as the British Chambers of Commerce have, too. If there is to be an expanded trusted trader scheme, it needs to actually work. It needs to be applicable to small businesses and businesses need to be able to access that scheme. We are now at the stage that businesses should know what those schemes are. If the Government are going to bring them forward, they need to do so as quickly as they possibly can so that businesses can be clear on what basis they will be trading in future. That is really important.
I am pleased to see that diagonal accumulation has been recognised in the Chequers agreement. I have been talking about it for some time, and I am really glad that it has been recognised and that we will have a situation where we will possibly still be able to export cars to South Korea, because that is really important for our car industry. I am pleased that the Government have now made it clear that they are pursuing that.
Protective geographical indicators are also mentioned in the Chequers White Paper. I am slightly concerned about the way the Government are going on this. It would be very good to have more information around that. A PGI scheme that applies only to the UK and does not recognise EU PGIs is a bit of a problem, so we need more clarity from the UK Government on how they intend the PGI scheme to work. I know that there is a negotiation, but if we could have their point of view first, that would be very useful.
I want to briefly mention some of the other meat in the Bill and something that the British Retail Consortium brought to us. It encapsulated some of the issues with the Bill very neatly. It said that there are not yet agreements on security, transit, haulage, VAT and people and that we need mutual recognition on veterinary, health and other checks with the EU. It seems that the Government are pursuing some of this, so that is good news. We need investment in IT systems to deliver the customs declaration system. Again, I am still not convinced that this will come through in time, so if the Minister could give reassurance that it will, I would very much appreciate it. We need co-ordination between agencies at ports and borders, as well as investment and capacity and staff at ports. The Government have not done enough on both those things. They have not put the extra resource into ports. They have not told ports how they will be administering these things in the future. If ports are going to have to massively increase their staff numbers, they need to know now how they will do that.
On queuing, a two-minute delay at Dover will create a 17-mile queue, so it is not as though Operation Stack will just happen as normal. This will not be Operation Stack. It will be an incredibly large version of it, and Operation Stack was bad enough. The BRC also mentioned AEOs, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises. All those things are still concerns about the Bill and I will raise them on Third Reading, if we have a Third Reading debate, because I do not believe that the Bill is fit for purpose as it is.
I specifically want to talk about the new clauses from the ERG. If the UK Government are bound to accept them, we have a very, very severe problem. I have major issues with new clauses 36 and 37 and amendments 72 and 73. New clause 36 relates to reciprocity. Page 13 of the Chequers agreement says:
“At the core of the UK’s proposal is the establishment by the UK and the EU of a free trade area for goods.”
It then goes on to make clear on page 17 that
“the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK.”
This new clause directly contradicts that.
What is the point in having a White Paper released on a Thursday if the Government are going to ignore it on Monday? I do not understand how we can be in that position. How can businesses know where we are going if the Government do not even know where they are going? For the Government to be accepting amendments by a group of around 14—who knows how many of them there are?—ERG members to get a hard Brexit is absolutely ridiculous. If there is going to be a Brexit, we need a Brexit that does what the Labour party suggests it should do: protects jobs. We need the Labour party to support a Brexit that protects jobs as well, not just us.
The Bill is a mess. It does not do what it set out to do, which is replicate the union customs code, and it does not now do what the Chequers agreement said it would on Friday. We need everybody in the House, from all the various factions I mentioned earlier, to get behind proposals that protect jobs and the sovereignty of the people, not just the sovereignty of an elite few.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I read the White Paper on the train home on Thursday, if only out of a sense of morbid curiosity, but following the Prime Minister’s capitulation to the Brexiteers today, that curiosity has turned to a sense of the macabre. To begin with, we had the woman in the bunker with the blacked-out windows saying we were outward facing. Are we? This from the Prime Minister who invented a hostile environment for the Windrush generation and for disabled people claiming their rightful benefits and whose Government have been on the wrong side of the law more times than Arthur Daley.
The Prime Minister went on to state that we had a dynamic and innovative economy. Do we? Our economy is 35% less productive than Germany’s; we invest less and we have the most regionally imbalanced economy in Europe. Growth is sluggish and inflation stubborn. And on it goes—it gets more surreal. She says we live by common values of openness and tolerance for others and the rule of law. Really? The only thing the Conservative party is open to and tolerant of is big fat donations from Russian oligarchs. But here is where it gets really interesting. When she speaks about sticking to our principles, one has to wonder which principles she is referring to—the ones she referred to yesterday and which are enshrined in the White Paper or those she holds this afternoon, which tear the White Paper to shreds. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
The Prime Minister wanted to deliver an ambition to “once and for all” strengthen our communities, our Union, our democracy and our place in the world. I will take those claims one by one: our communities have been ripped apart by austerity; our Union is in danger from Ministers out of touch with the needs of any nation and afraid to move away from their desks in case someone else takes it; our democracy is threatened by swathes of Henry VIII powers; and our place in the world is a laughing stock due to the Prime Minister’s supine sycophancy to Donald Trump, who humiliated her.
The White Paper—what is left of it—came from the pen of a Prime Minister obsessed with silly soundbites. She used to talk about “Labour’s magic money tree” until she wanted a magic money tree of her own with which to bribe the Democratic Unionist party, when that phrase was quickly ditched. What about the infamous “strong and stable” mantra? It turned out to be more like a strong and stable smell of panic during the election and was ditched as well. Finally, it seems that this White Paper has also been ditched.
As for Northern Ireland, I present, the buffer zone—a 10-mile-wide area along the entire boundary between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Under the EU’s trading rules, to be operational this buffer would have to be policed on both sides of the 10-mile divide. Did we really spend decades trying to get rid of divides in Northern Ireland only to resurrect them? I think not. As for the facilitated customs arrangement, we are not clear what about it constitutes a partnership, as it would effectively leave UK customs officials working to maintain a customs union that we are no longer a part of.
Regardless of who is responsible for managing the duties, it remains unclear how the FCA would be frictionless. Presumably, the final destination of goods would have to be queried as they enter the UK. This would slow down the passage of goods across our borders and prevent intricate supply chains from functioning properly. It would lead to waste, uncertainty and expense for business, to higher prices for consumers and to job losses and production moving abroad, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) pointed out. In that regard, the comments from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) were unconscionable.
What about the UK border? Does the Minister expect checks to be in place to ensure that goods that claim the UK as their final destination are not diverted into the EU once they arrive? Presumably, we would need customs checks and controls between the EU and the UK to reconcile goods to documents when, for example, UK anti-dumping duties exceed those applicable on import. Can the Minister clarify? Can he tell us how many trusted traders—the Tories using the word “trusted”; that’s a laugh, isn’t it?—are currently registered with the Government’s scheme and how many they believe will be registered by the end of the transition period?
Of course, all this can be avoided if the House chooses to support Labour’s clear and pragmatic solution to the issues of frictionless trade within the EU and preventing a hard border in Northern Ireland. New clause 11 presents Labour’s practical solution to the problems that have confounded the Conservatives. In our new clause, we call on the Government to negotiate a new customs union with the European Union, to be in place when we leave the current customs union at the end of the transition period. That is the only way to ensure that we can have frictionless trade with our largest trading partner and help to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It is what business needs and producers want, and it is what would most benefit the public.
Mr Speaker
I call the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mel Stride, but, as I do so, I must advise the House that the right hon. Gentleman is accompanied tonight, on his 13th wedding anniversary, by his good wife Michelle and their daughters Ophelia and Evelyn. It is an unusual way to spend the evening, but we hope they are enjoying it and we look forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
Mr Speaker, that is quite an introduction; thank you most graciously for your lovely comments—you will no doubt be injecting some zip into my marriage.
The Government have been clear that when we leave the EU we will leave the customs union; this is a matter of fact. And when considering the end state, the Government will not be seeking to negotiate any form of customs union. The Government proposal will create a UK-EU free trade area which establishes a common rulebook for industrial goods and agricultural products. This will maintain common high standards in these areas, but also ensure that no new changes take place in future without the approval of Parliament. As a result, we will avoid friction at the borders and protect jobs and livelihoods, as well as meet our commitment to Northern Ireland. We are proposing a new business-friendly customs model with the freedom to strike new trade deals around the world, a facilitated customs arrangement.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I wish the right hon. Gentleman—my old friend, who was my former economics tutorial partner at university—a happy anniversary, but why are services less important than goods?
Mel Stride
Services are most certainly not less important than goods; they make up about 80% of the economy and we will retain greater freedoms in terms of being able to do deals around the world in that respect. But under this approach, the UK will apply its own tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the UK and the UK’s tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the EU. This option meets the UK’s strategic objectives for our future customs relationship with the EU.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wedding anniversary. He has mentioned the facilitated customs arrangement, which is the point of the White Paper. In describing it, the White Paper states at paragraph 17:
“However, the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK,”
and also says we are not expecting it to be replicated in Europe. New clause 36 directly contradicts that. I gather that there are legalisms that the people who advised on the White paper no doubt did not consider when we put in the reference to reciprocity. Now my right hon. Friend is going to give us legalisms as to why it does not matter if we take reciprocity. The political point of these amendments is to destroy the White Paper and the arrangements it proposes. If he accepts them, their supporters will come back for more. Why does he not vote against them and leave them in the tiny minority in the House of Commons, that they actually represent?
Mel Stride
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. I have very little time, but I will come on to his point. The main point is that one has to read paragraph 17a of the White Paper in its entirety to grasp its full meaning, rather than take one part of it.
I will now address the amendments before us today. New clause 1 and consequential amendment 2, as spoken to initially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), would establish a negotiating objective for the UK to maintain its participation in the EU customs union and make the commencement of parts 1 and 2 of the Bill conditional upon the outcome of those negotiations. I have already set out that the UK leaving the EU customs union is a straightforward legal consequence of leaving the EU, so the Government must reject these amendments, as well as amendment 1.
The same applies to other amendments before us today: new clauses 1, 3, 4, 11 and 12 and their various consequential amendments, as well as amendments 8, 9, 12 and 14, but that does not mean that we will not seek to enter into a business-friendly and pragmatic arrangement that maintains trade that is as frictionless as possible between the UK and the EU27 as part of our future partnership with the EU. That is because this Government fully recognise, as was set out so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, the vital importance of the EU as a trading partner that in turn supports the economy and jobs and prosperity throughout the UK.
Let me now turn to new clause 36, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), which would prevent the implementation of a new arrangement that would see HMRC accounting for duty collected by HMRC to the Government of another territory or country unless the arrangement was reciprocal. The Government have been clear in the White Paper that under their proposed facilitated customs arrangement, the UK and the EU would agree a mechanism for the remittance of relevant tariff revenue. The UK proposes a reciprocal tariff revenue formula taking account of goods destined for the UK entering via the EU and of goods destined for the EU entering via the UK. The White Paper itself states:
“The UK and the EU should agree a mechanism for the remittance of relevant tariff revenue. On the basis that this is likely to be the most robust approach, the UK proposes a tariff revenue formula, taking account of goods destined for the UK entering via the EU and goods destined for the EU entering via the UK.”
New clause 36 is consistent with the Chequers proposal and the White Paper, so the Government are content to accept it—
Mel Stride
I will not give way, no. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] I have a lot to cover, and I will not give way.
Amendment 72, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), seeks to ensure that clause 31 cannot be used to form a customs union between the UK and the EU without primary legislation. As I have set out, the Government have been clear that as we leave the European Union, we will also leave the EU’s customs union, so the Government have no objection to this enhanced level of parliamentary security—[Interruption.] I have four minutes remaining, but I will take one intervention if it is brief.
Amber Rudd
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is some concern on this side of the House regarding new clause 36. He has set out why he is prepared to accept it, but will he reaffirm for those of us on both sides of the House who have those concerns that this will not impact on the negotiating strategy of the UK Government?
Mel Stride
The negotiating strategy of the UK Government is to seek reciprocity in this respect, and that is set out very clearly in the White Paper. Importantly, amendment 72 does not interfere with the Government’s purpose. We have no objection to the principle behind the amendment and we therefore accept it.
Amendment 73, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), will remove a specific power that will enable HMRC to make regulations covering the application of VAT to goods in circumstances where we reach a customs union agreement with other customs unions or territories under clause 31. The Chequers agreement does not propose such an arrangement with the European Union as part of the future economic partnership, so the Government accept this amendment.
The effect of new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), would be to ensure that Northern Ireland would not form part of a separate customs territory from Great Britain. This new clause is a straightforward statement of Government policy. It ensures that the Government will not act in a manner incompatible with the commitments made in the joint report of December last year, when we committed to protecting the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, as well as to turning the joint report commitments into legally binding form. The Government also accept this new clause.
I shall turn now to our future VAT arrangements with the EU. New clause 2 seeks to establish a negotiating objective to maintain the UK’s participation in the EU VAT area. This would limit our ability to appropriately consider our future VAT policy, and for that reason we reject it. The Government are also making an amendment to a schedule to the Finance Act 2008. Amendment 83 is consequential on the new customs framework provided for in the Bill and is necessary to ensure certain excise penalties remain in place on EU exit.
I now wish to turn briefly to the powers in the Bill. It is critical that we have these powers to allow us to respond flexibly, but we accept that in some cases it may be considered proportionate to apply the made affirmative procedure, and I am grateful for the discussion that I have had with my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) in this regard. It is on this basis that the Government have brought forward amendments 75, 76, 79, 81 and 23, which apply the made affirmative procedure to the powers under clauses 30, 42 and 47—the powers to make general provision in relation to import duty and to deal with retained EU VAT and excise law.
Clause 25 permits disclosures for customs duty purposes and makes it clear that disclosures that would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 are not permitted. We accept the Scottish National party’s amendments 33 and 34, which seek clarity in that regard.
Finally, we have had a full, robust and comprehensive debate today, as is entirely appropriate for a Bill of such importance. It is important for our ability to continue as one of the world’s great trading nations after our departure from the EU and to accommodate our future customs arrangement within our future economic partnership with the EU.
Anna Soubry
New clause 36 and amendment 73 are designed not to help the White Paper, but to wreck it. I am going to try to help the White Paper, which is why I seek leave to withdraw new clause 1.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that this matter is of the greatest possible interest to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). He is engaged in an animated conversation with his right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), but I feel sure that they are intensely interested in new clause 16 and the conduct of the democratic process relating thereto. Suitable interest is now demonstrated. Tellers for the Ayes are Mr David Linden and Mrs Marian Fellows. Tellers for the Noes are Wendy Morton and Mike Freer. Now those right hon. Members will be delighted to know that they can go back to talking to and listening, with rapt attention, to each other.
Mr Speaker
I informed the House earlier—which may have been of interest to those present, and with the encouragement of the right hon. Gentleman concerned—that the Financial Secretary was celebrating his 13th wedding anniversary in the presence of his wife and his two delightful daughters in the Gallery. I now must inform the House—[Interruption.] Well, whether I must or not, I am going to: I now must inform the House that the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has become a grandmother. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Lady, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who has become a grandfather. I must tell the House that Holly was born yesterday at 4 o’clock in the morning. Congratulations to the right hon. and learned Lady.
Clause 25
Disclosure of information
Amendment proposed: 33, page 17, line 2, leave out “Data Protection Act 1998” and insert “data protection legislation”.—(Kirsty Blackman.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
A Division was called.
Mr Speaker
Order. Colleagues will understand me if I say that I think there might be some evidence of what I might call ritualism involved in this matter, but it is up to people to find their own salvation, and I think that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is well able to do so, with help from others if he is so minded.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is very good of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that the Government had previously signalled, and I had been advised—although this is not a matter for the Chair—that they had accepted this amendment. However, when it was put to the vote, and Scottish National party voices shouted Aye, there was what might be described as an instinctive reaction of No from some quarters. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman was attempting to articulate, we are most grateful to him.
Mel Stride
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The instincts on our side are often divided, but not on this matter. We are at one in accepting amendment 33, as well as amendment 34, tabled by the Scottish National party.
Mr Speaker
Well, an absence of Tellers will suffice to achieve the objective of the Minister. Division off.
Amendment 33 agreed to.
Amendment made: 34, page 17, line 4, at end insert—
‘(8) In this section, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018.’ —(Kirsty Blackman.)
Clause 31
Territories forming part of a customs union with UK
Amendment made: 72, page 18, line 34, at end insert—
‘(4A) In the case of a customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union, Her Majesty may not make a declaration by Order In Council under subsection (4) unless the arrangements have been approved by an Act of Parliament.’—(Sir Bernard Jenkin.)
This amendment provides that the delegated powers under this clause may not be exercised until a proposed customs union with the European Union has been approved by a separate Act of Parliament.
Clause 32
Regulations etc
Amendments made: 75, page 19, line 15, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
“any regulations to which this subsection applies”.
Amendments 75 and 76 provide that regulations under Clause 30 (general provision for import duty purposes) cease to have effect if not approved by the House of Commons within 28 days of being made.
Amendment 76, page 19, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) Subsection (2) applies to—
(a) the first regulations under section8 (the customs tariff),
(b) any other regulations under that section the effect of which is an increase in the amount of import duty payable under the customs tariff in a standard case (within the meaning of that section), or
(c) regulations under section30 (general provision for import duty purposes).”—(Mel Stride.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 75.
Clause 39
Charge to export duty
Amendment made: 77, page 27, line 12, at end insert—
“( ) the interests of producers in the United Kingdom of the goods concerned,”.—(Mel Stride.)
This amendment requires the Treasury, when considering whether to impose export duty and the rate of export duty that ought to apply to particular goods if it is to be imposed, to have regard to the interests of UK producers of those goods.
Clause 42
EU law relating to VAT
Amendments made: 78, page 29, line 45, at end insert—
“( ) No regulations may be made under this section on or after 1 April 2023.”
This amendment provides that the powers to make regulations under Clause 42 (EU law relating to VAT) are not exercisable after 31 March 2023.
Amendment 79, page 30, line 1, leave out from “section” to end of line 2 and insert
“must be laid before the House of Commons, and, unless approved by that House before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the instrument is made, ceases to have effect at the end of that period.
‘( ) The fact that a statutory instrument ceases to have effect as mentioned in subsection (6) does not affect—
(a) anything previously done under the instrument, or
(b) the making of a new statutory instrument.
( ) In calculating the period for the purposes of subsection (6), no account is to be taken of any time—
(a) during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or
(b) during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than 4 days.”—(Mel Stride.)
This amendment provides that regulations under Clause 42 (EU law relating to VAT) cease to have effect if not approved by the House of Commons within 28 days of being made.
Clause 47
EU law relating to excise duty
Amendment made: 80, page 32, line 47, at end insert—
“( ) No regulations may be made under this section on or after 1 April 2023.”—(Mel Stride.)
This amendment provides that the power to make regulations under Clause 47 (EU law relating to excise duty) is not exercisable after 31 March 2023.
Clause 48
Regulations under ss. 44 to 47
Amendments made: 81, page 33, line 12, after “section” insert “, or regulations under section 47,”.
This amendment provides that regulations under Clause 47 (EU law relating to excise duty) cease to have effect if not approved by the House of Commons within 28 days of being made.
Amendment 23, page 33, line 30, leave out “47” and insert “46”.—(Mel Stride.)
This amendment is consequential Amendment 81.
Clause 51
Power to make provision in relation to VAT or duties of customs or excise
Amendment made: 82, page 34, line 41, at end insert—
“( ) No regulations may be made under this section on or after 1 April 2022.”—(Mel Stride.)
This amendment provides that the power to make regulations under Clause 51 (power to make provision in relation to VAT or duties of customs or excise) is not exercisable after 31 March 2022.
Schedule 4
Dumping of goods or foreign subsidies causing injury to UK industry
Amendments made: 103, page 66, line 26, leave out from “that” to end of line 30 and insert
“it is not in the public interest to accept it.
‘(2A) In considering that, the Secretary of State must accept the TRA’s determination that requiring a guarantee in accordance with the recommendation meets the economic interest test (see paragraph 25), unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the determination is not one that the TRA could reasonably have made.”
Amendments 103 and 108 provide that the Secretary of State may reject a recommendation by the TRA to apply an anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedy only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is not in the public interest to accept the recommendation. In deciding that, the Secretary of State must accept the TRA’s view that the economic interest test is met, unless satisfied that the TRA could not reasonably have come to that view.
Amendment 104, page 68, line 42, leave out
“such period as the TRA considers necessary”
and insert
“a period of 5 years unless the TRA considers that a lesser period is sufficient”.
Amendments 104 and 105 provide that the recommended period for the application of an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount is 5 years unless the TRA considers that a lesser period is sufficient to counteract the dumping, or the importation of subsidised goods, which has caused or is causing injury.
Amendment 105, page 69, line 1, leave out from beginning to “and” in line 3.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 104.
Amendment 106, page 69, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) In the case of a recommendation of such a prior date made by virtue of paragraph 19, the reference in sub-paragraph (2)(a) to a period of 5 years is to be read as a reference to a period of 5 years plus the relevant period (within the meaning of paragraph 19).”
This amendment ensures that where it is recommended that an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount is applied to goods from a date on or before the day of publication of the relevant public notice under clause 13, the default recommended period of 5 years for the application of the amount (provided for by Amendment 104) is extended by that prior period.
Amendment 107, page 69, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) See also paragraph 21 regarding the possibility, following a review, of extensions or variations to the period for which an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount applies to goods.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 105.
Amendment 108, page 70, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of line 17 and insert
“it is not in the public interest to accept it.
‘(2A) In considering that, the Secretary of State must accept the TRA’s determination that the application of an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount to goods in accordance with the recommendation meets the economic interest test (see paragraph 25), unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the determination is not one that the TRA could reasonably have made.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 103.
Amendment 109, page 72, line 11, leave out
“5 year period referred to in paragraph 18(2)(b)”
and insert
“period referred to in paragraph 18(2)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 104 and 105.
Amendment 110, page 75, line 28, at end insert—
“(zi) the injury caused by the dumping of the goods, or the importation of the subsidised goods, to a UK industry in the goods and the benefits to that UK industry in removing that injury,”
Paragraph 25(4)(a) of Schedule 4 lists certain matters which the TRA and the Secretary of State must take account of, so far as relevant, when deciding whether the application of an anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedy is not in the economic interest of the UK. Amendment 110 inserts an express reference in that list to the injury caused by the dumping of the goods or the subsidised imports to a UK industry in the goods and of the benefits to that industry in removing that injury.
Amendment 111, page 76, line 9, at end insert—
“(zi) the UK industry referred to in sub-paragraph (4)(a)(zi) and other producers of goods,”
Amendments 111 and 112 make clear that the references to “affected industries” in paragraph 25 of Schedule 4 continue to include the injured UK industry referred to in Amendment 110.
Amendment 112, page 76, line 10, leave out “producers and”.—(Mel Stride.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 111.
Schedule 5
Increase in imports causing serious injury to UK producers
Amendments made: 113, page 81, line 32, after “plan” insert
“or the TRA waives the requirement for the application to be accompanied by such a plan”.
This amendment enables the TRA to waive the requirement for an application for the initiation of a safeguarding investigation to be accompanied by a preliminary adjustment plan.
Amendment 85, page 84, line 12, leave out from “goods” to end of line 14 and insert
“or to specified relevant goods;
(b) that all the relevant goods, or specified relevant goods, should be subject to a quota for a specified period during which a lower rate of import duty should be applicable to imports of goods within the amount of the quota than is applicable to imports of goods outside the amount of the quota (referred to in this Schedule as a ‘provisional tariff rate quota’).
(3A) Where the TRA makes a recommendation under sub-paragraph (3)(a) in relation to relevant goods it must, as part of the recommendation, recommend to the Secretary of State how a provisional safeguarding amount applicable to those goods should be determined.”
This amendment enables the TRA, where it makes a provisional affirmative determination during a safeguarding investigation, to recommend that goods be made subject to a provisional tariff rate quota as an alternative to recommending that a provisional safeguarding amount be applied to the goods.
Amendment 86, page 84, line 16, leave out
“the application of a provisional safeguarding amount”
and insert
“applying a provisional safeguarding amount to relevant goods, or making relevant goods subject to a provisional tariff rate quota,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 87, page 84, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
“(5) The TRA may only make a recommendation under one or other of paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (3) in relation to any particular relevant good.
(5A) The TRA may make a recommendation under paragraph (a) or (b) of sub-paragraph (3) in relation to specified relevant goods (rather than all the relevant goods) only if the recommendations which it makes under that sub-paragraph, when taken together, cover all the relevant goods.
(5B) If the TRA determines that there are one or more recommendations which it could make under sub-paragraph (3) in relation to all the relevant goods, or that there are one or more recommendations which it could make under sub-paragraph (3) in relation to specified relevant goods, it must make that recommendation or one of those recommendations (subject to sub-paragraphs (5) and (5A)).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85. It has the effect that the TRA may recommend that goods in relation to which a provisional affirmative determination is made should be subject either to a provisional safeguarding amount or a provisional tariff rate quota, but not both, although some of the goods may be subject to one type of provisional remedy whilst the rest are subject to the other type of remedy.
Amendment 88, page 84, line 35, leave out “11(3)” and insert “11(3)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 89, page 84, line 41, leave out
“The recommendation referred to in paragraph 11(3)(b)”
and insert
“A recommendation under paragraph 11(3)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 90, page 84, line 42, at end insert “(see paragraph 11(3A))”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 91, page 85, line 11, leave out “11(3)” and insert “11(3)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 92, page 85, line 12, at end insert—
“TRA’s recommendations regarding provisional tariff rate quotas
12A (1) This paragraph applies to a recommendation by the TRA under paragraph 11(3)(b) in relation to goods.
(2) The specified period referred to in paragraph 11(3)(b)—
(a) must not exceed 200 days, and
(b) if the recommendation is accepted by the Secretary of State, must begin on the day after the date of publication of the public notice under section 13 giving effect to the recommendation.
(3) The recommendation must (in addition to the specified period) include—
(a) the TRA’s recommendation regarding—
(i) the amount of the quota,
(ii) how the quota should be allocated, and
(iii) the rates of import duty that should be applied to goods subject to the quota, and
(b) such other content as regulations may require.
(4) The TRA must consult the Secretary of State before making a recommendation regarding the allocation of the quota.
(5) The things recommended by the TRA by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(a) must be such as the TRA is satisfied are necessary to prevent serious injury which it would be difficult to repair from being caused during the investigation to UK producers of the goods.
(6) Regulations may make provision for the purposes of sub-paragraph (5) about how the things which the TRA is satisfied are necessary to prevent the serious injury described in that provision are to be determined.”
This amendment makes provision about the content of a TRA recommendation that goods should be subject to a provisional tariff rate quota. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 85 concerning the making of such a recommendation.
Amendment 93, page 85, line 14, leave out “11(3)” and insert “11(3)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 94, page 85, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 95, page 85, line 40, leave out
“of a provisional remedy in respect of goods”
and insert
“for which a provisional safeguarding amount applies to goods”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 96, page 85, line 42, at end insert—
“Secretary of State’s power to subject goods to a provisional tariff rate quota
13A (1) If the TRA makes a recommendation under paragraph 11(3)(b), the Secretary of State must decide whether to accept or reject the recommendation.
(2) The Secretary of State may reject the recommendation only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that—
(a) making goods subject to a provisional tariff rate quota in accordance with the recommendation does not meet the economic interest test (see paragraph 21), or
(b) it is not otherwise in the public interest to accept the recommendation.
(3) If the recommendation is rejected, the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish notice of the TRA’s provisional affirmative determination in relation to the goods, of the recommendation and of the rejection of it,
(b) notify interested parties (see paragraph 29(3)) accordingly, and
(c) lay a statement before the House of Commons setting out the reasons for rejecting the recommendation.
(4) If the recommendation is accepted, the Secretary of State—
(a) must publish notice of the TRA’s provisional affirmative determination in relation to the goods, of the recommendation and of the acceptance of it,
(b) must notify interested parties accordingly, and
(c) is required under section 13 to make provision by public notice to give effect to the recommendation.
(5) The period for which goods are subject to a provisional tariff rate quota ceases (if it has not already expired) when the safeguarding investigation in relation to the goods terminates.”
This amendment makes provision about what the Secretary of State is to do if the TRA recommends that goods should be subject to a provisional tariff rate quota. See the explanatory statement to Amendment 85 concerning the making of such a recommendation.
Amendment 114, page 86, line 32, at end insert—
“( ) But sub-paragraph (5) is to be read as if paragraph (b) were omitted if the TRA waived the requirement for the application to initiate a safeguarding investigation in relation to the relevant goods to be accompanied by a preliminary adjustment plan.”
Paragraph 14(5)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Bill requires the TRA to be satisfied that an adjustment plan is in place before recommending to the Secretary of State, following the making of a final affirmative determination in a safeguarding investigation, that a definitive safeguarding amount should be applied or a tariff rate quota imposed. This amendment disapplies the paragraph 14(5)(b) requirement in cases where the requirement to provide a preliminary adjustment plan was waived at the point when the application was being made for the initiation of a safeguarding investigation.
Amendment 97, page 88, leave out lines 1 to 13 and insert—
“(7) If a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied to some or all of the goods as part of the same safeguarding investigation, sub-paragraph (8) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2)(b) and (4)(b).
(8) The length of the specified period referred to in paragraph 14(3)(a), so far as relating to goods to which a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied, is to be treated as extended by the length of the specified period for which the TRA recommended that a provisional safeguarding remedy should be applied to them.
(9) Where the application of sub-paragraph (8) results in the length of the specified period referred to in paragraph 14(3)(a), so far as relating to goods to which a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied, exceeding 1 year, sub-paragraph (4)(b) is to be read as if references to goods were references to the goods to which the provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied.
(10) In this paragraph, references to the application of a provisional safeguarding remedy are to—
(a) applying a provisional safeguarding amount to goods, or
(b) making goods subject to a provisional tariff rate quota.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85. It explains what effect the period of a provisional tariff rate quota is to have where the TRA later recommends the application of a definitive safeguarding amount. The amendment also incorporates the existing provision about the effect of the period of a provisional safeguarding amount.
Amendment 98, page 89, leave out lines 6 to 18 and insert—
“(7) If a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied to some or all of the goods as part of the same safeguarding investigation, sub-paragraph (8) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2)(b) and (5)(b).
(8) The length of the specified period referred to in paragraph 14(3)(b), so far as relating to goods to which a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied, is to be treated as extended by the length of the specified period for which the TRA recommended that a provisional safeguarding remedy should be applied to them.
(9) Where the application of sub-paragraph (8) results in the length of the specified period referred to in paragraph 14(3)(b), so far as relating to goods to which a provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied, exceeding 1 year, sub-paragraph (5)(b) is to be read as if references to goods were references to the goods to which the provisional safeguarding remedy has been applied.
(10) In this paragraph, references to the application of a provisional safeguarding remedy are to—
(a) applying a provisional safeguarding amount to goods, or
(b) making goods subject to a provisional tariff rate quota.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85. It explains what effect the period of a provisional tariff rate quota is to have where the TRA later recommends that goods be subject to a tariff rate quota. The amendment also incorporates the existing provision about the effect of the period of a provisional safeguarding amount.
Amendment 115, page 91, line 8, leave out “the adjustment plan” and insert “an adjustment plan as”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 114.
Amendment 116, page 93, line 27, at end insert—
“(zi) the serious injury caused by the importation of the goods in increased quantities to UK producers of those goods and the benefits to those UK producers in removing that injury,”
Paragraph 21(3)(a) of Schedule 5 lists certain matters which the TRA and the Secretary of State must take account of, so far as relevant, when deciding whether the application of a safeguarding remedy is in the economic interest of the UK. Amendment 116 inserts an express reference in that list to the serious injury caused by the importation of the goods in increased quantities to UK producers of the goods and of the benefits to those producers in removing that injury.
Amendment 99, page 93, line 43, after “a” insert
“provisional tariff rate quota or a”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 117, page 94, line 1, at end insert—
“(zi) the UK producers referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(a)(zi) and other producers of goods,”.
Amendments 117 and 118 make clear that the references to “affected industries” in paragraph 21 of Schedule 5 continue to include the injured UK producers referred to in Amendment 116.
Amendment 118, page 94, line 2, leave out “producers and”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 117.
Amendment 100, page 96, line 18, after “a” insert
“provisional tariff rate quota or a”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 101, page 97, leave out lines 24 and 25.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 102, page 97, line 29, at end insert—
“‘provisional tariff rate quota’ has the meaning given by paragraph 11(3)(b);”.—(Mel Stride.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Schedule 8
VAT amendments connected with withdrawal from EU
Amendment proposed: 73, page 135, leave out paragraph 14.—(Craig Mackinlay.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill
Tuesday 17th July 2018
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 16 July 2018 - (16 Jul 2018)
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill
Tuesday 4th September 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 16 July 2018 - (16 Jul 2018)
18:17 - Division on Baroness Kramer's amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 98 / Noes: 178 - Baroness Kramer's amendment disagreed.
Lord Bates
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant Documents: 11th and 32nd Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have been clear that, following the UK’s exit from the European Union and its customs union, we intend to secure a deep and special partnership with our nearest trading partner. As we seek to pursue a bold, new and independent international trade policy, the need to avoid friction in trade with the EU will continue to be of the utmost importance. This is one of the underlying principles behind the Government’s proposals set out in the White Paper published on 12 July—to create a UK-EU free trade area that establishes a common rulebook for industrial goods and agricultural products. This will maintain high standards in those areas, but the Government will also ensure that no new changes in the future take place without the approval of Parliament.
As part of our future economic partnership with the EU, the UK will also propose a new customs model with the freedom to strike new trade deals around the world—a facilitated customs arrangement. Under that model, the UK would apply its own tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the UK, but apply the EU’s tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the EU. As a result, the need for customs checks and controls between the UK and the EU would be avoided, removing a friction which would otherwise cost UK businesses billions of pounds a year, and avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
The details of the future economic partnership—and, within that, our future customs arrangements—are of course a matter for negotiations with the EU. I turn to those negotiations. We have already published, in the lead-up to the June European Council, a joint statement with the European Commission. It sets out the progress we have made thus far in finalising the text of the withdrawal agreement on the majority of remaining separation issues. We are having constructive discussions and our negotiating teams continue to work at pace to ensure that those are finalised by the autumn.
Of course, it is vital that the UK is prepared for a range of outcomes from the negotiations, and the Government have already taken a great many steps to ensure that this is the case. Indeed, the Bill represents a significant part of those preparations. As set out in the customs Bill White Paper, which noble Lords had the opportunity to debate on 5 December 2017, it allows the UK to establish a new, stand-alone customs regime, and will ensure that VAT and excise legislation operates as required on EU exit. Since the referendum—both before and after the publication of the future partnership paper on 15 August 2017—the Government have met over 300 businesses and other organisations involved in international trade throughout the UK to discuss customs, VAT and excise, and a further 1,700 to discuss wider EU exit issues. This engagement has been taken into careful consideration when drafting the Bill.
The Bill contains a number of provisions that are absolutely essential for any future customs regime to function effectively, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. These include: enabling the UK to charge import duty on goods, including those imported from the EU, in Clause 1; enabling HMRC to set out how, and in what form, customs declarations should be made, in Schedule 1; giving the UK the freedom to vary the rates of import duty as necessary, and setting out the factors that the Government must have regard to when doing so, in Clause 8; allowing the UK to continue to offer zero or low-tariff access to its markets for less developed countries following EU exit, under its own unilateral preferences scheme, as set out in Schedule 3; together with the Trade Bill, establishing an independent trade remedies regime, set out in Schedules 4 and 5; and providing the power for the UK to maintain existing customs union arrangements with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—which we will most certainly seek to do—which is set out in Clause 31.
Moreover, the Bill contains a number of provisions enabling subsequent changes to the VAT and excise regimes, which may later be required but cannot be predicted as this stage, which are set out in Parts 3 and 4. Finally, in Parts 5 and 6 there are a series of necessary and appropriate powers to support the transition from the current customs, VAT and excise regimes and to ensure that the UK is able to respond effectively to the outcome of the negotiations.
Throughout the passage of the Bill through the other place, the Government heard representations from a range of stakeholders, from both within and outside Parliament. In light of these representations, we made a number of amendments to the Bill as it went through the other place. For example, amendments were made following feedback from parliamentarians, including the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which wanted to ensure that the scrutiny and scope of the Bill’s powers are appropriately balanced, including by “sunsetting” and by applying the affirmative procedure in certain cases. There is also explicit confirmation that the Treasury will have regard to the interests of UK producers when setting any future import duty rates, and changes were made to provide more clarity in the Bill on the operation of the UK’s future trade remedies regime.
The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill is of course not the only piece of EU exit legislation that the House will consider. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which completed its passage through Parliament in June, will perform a critical role in ensuring a functioning statute book on the day we leave the European Union. Furthermore, it confirms that it is for this Parliament—and in some cases the devolved legislatures—to make any future changes. The Act will maximise certainty for individuals and businesses as we leave the EU. It is in no one’s interests for there to be a cliff edge, so the laws and rules that we have now will, so far as possible, continue to apply.
Looking forward, the Trade Bill, which will receive its Second Reading before your Lordships’ House next Tuesday, will provide important continuity for UK businesses, workers and consumers, and for our international trading partners. This key legislation serves the purpose of enabling the preservation of the UK’s current trade and investment relationships, while creating necessary legal powers to ensure we are ready to operate independently when we leave the European Union.
Finally—although not exhaustively—the EU withdrawal agreement Bill will be brought forward once the negotiations have been concluded and Parliament has approved a final deal agreed with the EU. The Bill will be an essential part of the UK’s preparations for a smooth and orderly exit from the EU. The Government have already, on 24 July, published a White Paper in advance—Command Paper 9674—entitled Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. It sets out a number of provisions, covering citizens’ rights, the implementation period, the negotiated financial settlement, procedures for the approval and implementation of the withdrawal agreement and a framework for our future relationship. The White Paper gives Parliament time to begin considering the content of the Bill ahead of its introduction, including by providing detail on the substantial areas of agreement that have already been reached with the EU, in particular our deal on citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and the time-limited implementation period.
The Bill before us today takes significant steps to make certain that the UK is ready for EU withdrawal, by allowing the UK to establish a stand-alone customs regime and by ensuring that our VAT and excise legislation operates as required on exit day. As we begin our discussions with the EU on the end state, of which the customs union is a key part, the Government will continue to be guided by the drivers underpinning the proposed model, as set out in the White Paper of 12 July. For this reason, we confidently anticipate a future in which the UK will be able to pursue trade deals with partners across the world and, at the same time, one in which our trade with the EU will remain as frictionless as possible and in which we avoid a hard land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
These are also the principles informing the Government’s approach to the Bill, which I commend to the House today. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe
As an amendment to the motion that the bill be now read a second time, at end to insert “but expresses grave concern that the Government agreed to accept, without detailed Parliamentary scrutiny, substantial measures that contradict both the United Kingdom’s stated negotiating position and commitments already entered into with the European Union; and that the bill introduces additional barriers to securing a United Kingdom–European Union customs union.”
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to the Bill, which will be needed in any sensible Brexit scenario. As a supply Bill, it is not the role of this House to hinder its passage. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to set out the criticisms that we have of this legislation and the context in which we are having this Second Reading debate today.
Once again, as the Government have done in all previous Brexit Bills, powers from Europe are being repatriated, not to Parliament, but to the Executive. Labour opposes those clauses that give the Treasury huge amounts of delegated power to set regulations and future customs duty tariff rates through the back door. Parliament, not the Executive, should have the final say.
Labour supports the creation of a truly independent Trade Remedies Authority to help protect UK industry and advise the Government on how best to tackle the dumping of state-subsidised goods on the UK market. However, the Bill also provides the Secretary of State with a veto to prevent adoption, against the advice of the TRA, if he determines that it is not in either the economic interest or the public interest, both of which remain undefined. Overall, Labour is concerned about the lack of detail in the Bill to protect UK manufacturing and business. The proposals are pitiful, to say the least. They are weaker than those currently in the EU and those in most developed trading nations, and they will put manufacturing jobs at risk.
However, it is to be welcomed that the Government have made a number of concessions to Labour amendments. Of particular note are concessions that strengthen the role of the TRA, introduce sunset clauses for delegated powers and give Parliament a vote on the raising or lowering of import duty and excise duty and on the raising of VAT.
The Government must resource and staff HMRC to guarantee the successful implementation of the new customs and tariff regime. Its staffing levels have been cut by 17% since 2010 and are set to be cut further this year.
I turn now to the White Paper, The Future Relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, Command Paper 9593, which is now more popularly known as “Chequers”. Although it represents a move away from the type of proposal advocated by many Tory Brexiteers, the proposals stop well short of the comprehensive customs union that Labour has called for. We believe that, instead of floating a complex and bureaucratic customs fudge, the Government should focus on negotiating a comprehensive customs union for all goods and on securing a proper position for services.
I now turn to my amendment, which in summary is addressed to the amendments tabled by the European Research Group, but let us once again look briefly at the White Paper. Labour cannot endorse it but one has to admit that it is better than nothing. It could conceivably move the process along and it is the first document to acknowledge that compromise is necessary. However, it was two years in the making and it was blown out of the water within a few days of publication. I am referring not to the resignation of two Cabinet members—individuals whose promotion few of us could understand in the first place and whose absence from the Cabinet can only but improve its overall capability—but to the fact that it was torpedoed in this Bill by amendments tabled by members of the ERG.
Let us look first at the two amendments that relate to a customs union. Labour believes that we should seek to negotiate a new, comprehensive UK-EU customs union. For that reason, we were pleased to see Clause 31 in the Bill. Before amendment by the ERG, it provided a potential vehicle to negotiate a customs union. Now, encumbered by Clause 31(5), it will be difficult to use in the frighteningly few weeks left. Add to that the deletion of paragraph 14 of Schedule 8—a power that is essential for a customs union—and the amendments all but cut off this essential area of compromise.
However, the biggest torpedo of them all is new Clause 54. Turning back to the White Paper, its biggest idea is set out in paragraphs 13 to 21 of point 1.2.1 under Chapter 1, starting on page 16. Of particular note is paragraph 17a. In effect, it says to the EU: “We want to be part of your free trade area but set our own overseas tariffs. If our tariffs are less than yours, we will collect your tariffs for goods destined for the EU. We will not, however, expect you to collect our tariffs at your border if they are greater than yours. A simple compromise: we will protect your external tariff regime; we are not asking you to set up a complex system to protect ours”. This compromise, as I said earlier, has been blown out of the water by new Clause 54—an amendment proposed by Priti Patel, Jacob Rees-Mogg et cetera.
The new clause specifies reciprocity. The Government would be allowed to collect EU tariffs at our borders only if the EU were required to collect UK tariffs at its borders. There was only a limited possibility that the EU would accept the White Paper compromise but, burdened with reciprocity, as it now is, I put it to the House that the probability is now negligible.
How did these damaging amendments get into the Bill? Were they introduced in Committee in the other place and carefully debated and scrutinised? No, they were introduced at the last possible moment on Report. Why did they get through? They got through because the Prime Minister gave in to the ERG. A Back-Bench group of Tory Brexiteers now effectively has control of the Brexit negotiations.
That brings me to the sorry performance of Theresa May. I, like many, breathed a sigh of relief when she became Prime Minister—a sigh of relief because the alternatives were Boris Johnson, David Davis or Michael Gove—but her performance has been lamentable. We should not be surprised. She was, after all, the Home Secretary whose actions brought us the present crime wave, the hostile environment and the Windrush scandal. She clearly has no understanding of negotiation. Negotiation is a process whereby two sides explore each other’s positions and motivations to seek common ground as a basis for agreement. It is not, in general, aided by going behind the back of the other side’s nominated representative. Negotiation is a remarkably personal affair where respect and empathy are crucial. Her colleague, Dr Fox, has opined that a no-deal exit is a 60:40 probability. A no-deal exit would be a disaster for all our citizens. If it happens, she will have been responsible for the worst political event of the last 45 years.
I do not intend to divide the House on my amendment. Success would have no effect and would be represented in the Brexit press as this House exceeding its authority. However, I hope the debate will cause the Government to pause and think again; to listen to the proposals from across the House, and particularly from the Labour Party; to wrest control from the ERG, and to deliver a Brexit deal for all our citizens. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I start by saying to the Government that it is a travesty that this Bill comes to the House as a supply Bill. The Government attempted to get it classified as a money Bill in the other place, and they failed. But it was completely unnecessary for the Government to put in the four-word phrase that turned this into a supply Bill. That was done simply to prevent any amendment by this House. No Government would do that if they had confidence in the content in the Bill and the very use of the manoeuvre, frankly, underscores the Bill’s inadequacies.
The Government have claimed on numerous occasions that the Bill is merely technical, designed to enable Customs to function post Brexit. If that were so, the content of the Bill would not presuppose any particular outcome from the ongoing negotiations of our future relationship with the EU. Instead, it sets up barriers to negotiating an arrangement that would allow the UK to remain in the customs union and the single market. Those barriers were reinforced when the Government chose to support the four amendments from the European Research Group—the militant hard-Brexit wing of the Conservative Party. But then, we are beginning to recognise that so much of this process has been about power struggles within the Conservative Party, and the national interest, jobs, the economy and our young people are all relegated to an incidental role in what really matters to the Government—which of them will be Prime Minister. That is why today I am moving the Motion in my name and on behalf of my colleagues, and I will be pressing it to a vote because I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe: the attention of the Brexiteers has to be drawn by action and comment, and the kind of action we can take in this House is to vote when we are able.
Some will ask why I am bothering to do that when the Chequers proposal, much of which is expressed in the Bill’s clauses, is already dead. They have a point. The facilitated customs agreement is unacceptable to Barnier and the EU leaders; the Tory Brexiteers absolutely hate it—David Davis and others have said that they will vote against it; and, frankly, most Tory Remainers cannot stomach it. But that is exactly my point: a proper process through this House would have allowed workable structures to be proposed, debated and offered to the Commons.
The facilitated customs arrangement is unworkable; it does not provide for a frictionless commercial border between the UK and the 27 for goods, never mind that it utterly neglects services, which, as we often point out in this House, are 80% of the UK economy and often wrapped into, not separate from, manufacturing. The FCA’s complexity in dealing with imports and tariff differentials is an invitation to fraud on an industrial scale, especially when it comes to parts and bulk imports. There is no hope of policing a system of this extraordinary complexity with so many loopholes and difficulties inherent in it. It deals only in very limited part with the Irish border issue, which is surely critical to all of our negotiations, and it is completely confused over the handling of country of origin requirements. Indeed, as best I can work out, it expects the EU to renegotiate every trade deal, of which there are 40, so that for exports UK parts are treated as local EU content. Yet it also insists that for imports the EU and the UK will operate separate country of origin regimes—in other words, a completely non-reciprocal arrangement. That is just the beginning of some of the many complexities around country of origin. It also loads on to businesses layer after layer of form-filling and activity tracking along with, as I say, country of origin being only one of those intensely complex burdens.
I talked to someone running a small business manufacturing party goods for sale across most of Europe who is very much up on these issues. He has calculated that the cost of the new paperwork alone would lose him every single one of his European customers. Frankly, it is death to his business. The FCA requires us to leave the EU VAT area so that VAT would have to be paid at the time goods cross the border in both directions. The cash-flow hit would wreck many companies, especially small ones. Our biggest manufacturers are writing to us with desperate pleas for resolutions, guarantees of no delays at our borders and no trade or non-trade barriers. The FCA and its reliance on authorised economic operator status for the big players is costly and cumbersome, even for those that have a whole legal and technical department to begin to grapple with its requirements.
I would love to hear from the Government what the real cost is to businesses of their Chequers proposal. Which businesses will be unable to survive? Which will have to lose customers or leave the UK? Which jobs are under threat, and where? Moreover, what about the costs to the Government? Our major ports have struggled to manage existing international trade, which is why the European Commission is taking us to court for a number of failures. Many of our smaller ports have no customs staff to speak of and our key trade arteries, our roll-on roll-off ports, cannot cope with even a two-minute delay.
Therefore, I say to the Government: show us the numbers and tell us the cost of leaving the customs union. Or is this simply a political decision with the implications for our economy merely being sketched in effect on the back of a fag packet? The Government counter any questions with a complacent discussion of “no deal” and are advising warehouse building, stockpiling and planning to move activity to the 27. Frankly, that will be an economic disaster. I will not spend more time talking about “no deal” because I am sure that others will pick up the issue in the course of the debate, but I do not believe it is something any Government should contemplate, and I am shocked by constantly hearing that we will be able to enjoy a prosperous future, deal or no deal.
I have not even touched on the constitutional issues. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has done its usual outstanding job, and I am sure other speakers will talk more extensively about them. But once again we are seeing Henry VIII provisions, and especially in this case a significant expansion in the use of public notices. All of this underscores once again why the Bill should go through this House being subject to detailed scrutiny, which would tackle exactly that kind of issue.
From pretty much every perspective, this customs Bill is inadequate and wrong-headed. It should at the very least allow our continued membership of the customs union and the single market; it should require a proper economic assessment of leaving the customs union, and it should respect Parliament and the balance of power. Given that it does none of these, frankly, I would argue that the people should be able to have a say again, on both this shambles of a negotiation and any final deal. For those reasons, I have tabled the Motion to amend that stands in my name.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, back in such sparkling form after the holiday, and I very much share her view that it is regrettable that we in this House are not allowed to do our normal job on this Bill. There is a lot of technical stuff in it and our job of scrutinising, of considering possible omissions and anomalies, and of suggesting through the contribution of judicious amendments improvements to enable the other place to think again would seem to make a classic case for a Bill of this size, complexity and detail. The House of Lords would have handled it very well, but it seems that by procedural stratagem we are being denied a substantive opportunity, and that for me is wrong. I very much regret it.
I want to ask two questions about the Bill and draw attention to two omissions. My first question is about the Trade Remedies Authority, which turns up in Clause 13 and has its duties relating to imports thought to be affected by unfair subsidies or anti-dumping cases spelt out in two of the schedules. It surprises me that I do not find the Bill establishing the authority. It does not tell me about the authority’s composition. It tells me about some of its duties but where is the power that establishes it? Can we be told how independent of government it will be? How will consumer and producer interests be balanced in its composition? How will the differing interests of parts of the Kingdom be balanced? The October White Paper spoke about the need for UK-specific thresholds but in the smaller Celtic economies, a producer concern that would not be seen as substantive in relation to the UK economy might loom large in particular sectors. Will the devolved Administrations or Assemblies be able to nominate representatives to the Trade Remedies Authority?
I may have missed something: perhaps these questions have been answered already elsewhere but they are not answered in the Bill and I do not understand why. How will the authority be staffed? The section of the Commission that handles anti-dumping is ferociously efficient and equipped with powerful economic analysis, which you need because producer interests tend to get front-page attention and may not advance national—or EU, in this case—interests. Have we recruited these people? What kind of people are we trying to recruit? Are they capable of carrying out this important task?
Secondly, when will the Government give the country some idea of how they intend to use the power conferred on them by the Bill? In mid-August, we were told that Dr Fox’s department decided to terminate 72 of the 114 EU tariffs currently imposed as anti-dumping measures or because of unfair subsidies. Which 72 will they be? Business might like to know that; it would helpful for planning. How does this relate to the role of the Trade Remedies Authority? Does it exist in shadow form? Has it been consulted? Will it be consulted or is it just being pre-empted by a fiat by the department, in which case my question about its powers and composition may be irrelevant?
This relates to a wider concern about uncertainty. The Minister spoke about the need for certainty; he is absolutely right. Current uncertainties are holding up investment and precluding sensible business planning. Dr Fox is keeping very quiet. Presumably, he sticks to his Heritage Foundation/Adam Smith Institute/Henry Jackson Society principles. Presumably, it is with a light heart that he decides to axe 72 import tariffs because he is a devoted free marketeer, but he is not saying that now. He is keeping quiet about which sections of the economy he would prefer to open up to greater competition. He is not stopping Mr Gove assuring the farmers or the environmental interests that they are going to be protected. Yet, if Dr Fox starts negotiating—as I suppose he will one day—with Canadians, Americans, Australians or New Zealanders, he will find that what they want most of all is access to UK markets for their farm products. This conflicts slightly with the assurances Mr Gove has given, although it might be absolutely in line with what Dr Fox, the free marketeer, and the Adam Smith Institute would like.
I do not know whom to believe. I think the Government are trying to speak out of both sides of their mouth. They are trying to please everybody at present by keeping us all in doubt as to what their import policy would be. Of course, Dr Pangloss of the Sunday Telegraph assures us that the consumers are going to win and prices are going to fall. Meanwhile, the agricultural producers are being assured by Mr Gove that they are going to be all right. Everybody is a winner. This is certainly the view of Pangloss in the Telegraph. It would be good if the Government took a view and told us—perhaps next week, when we will be talking about the Trade Bill—what their import policy is. Is the current balance of producer and consumer interest to change, as Dr Fox would presumably like? On agriculture, is it the farmers and food processors who are going to succeed, or is it the foreigners and consumers? Are any tariffs that matter to farmers and food producers among those which Dr Fox has decided should be axed—the 72 that are condemned? At present, everybody is being assured that all will be okay. It is Pangloss time, but to govern is to choose. In the context of this Bill and of the Trade Bill, the Minister should tell us where on the spectrum—from liberal, open markets to protectionism—the Government are going to stand.
What is missing in this Bill is any provision for the two options spelled out in the White Paper: the highly streamlined customs arrangements or the new customs partnership. Under this partnership, our customs authorities would segregate goods designed for consumption in this country from goods heading for onward export to the EU, charging our duties on the former and EU duties on the latter. I do not mourn either omission. As the former Foreign Secretary’s article in last weekend’s press eloquently expressed, the invisible, highly streamlined frontier is a pipe dream which is easily translated by the press into sound and fury signifying nothing. There is nothing underneath it. It is not possible. The EU will not change the rules for its frontier regime which it, with our active participation, has developed down the years. When we leave the EU customs union, we will be outside its frontier, which will be run according to its rules. The touch has got lighter over the years. The turnaround has got faster over time, but we cannot expect a sudden step change, an entirely new regime or a loophole for the British alone. It is not going to happen.
As for the partnership, I thought it was dead on arrival. I knew it was dead when, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, reminded us, the Government immediately changed the Chequers plan in response to ERG pressure. They demanded that the 27 similarly clog up their ports by segregating their imports too and that they should run a two-tier tariff system, charging our duties on goods in their ports where the final destination was our country and tracking them until they got here. Why should they do that? Why should they impose this massive new friction on themselves? It was never going to happen. It was cloud-cuckoo-land. As M Barnier said at the weekend, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. He is right.
I have a slightly different take on this from that of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I want to ask the Minister whether he can confirm that the absence from the Bill of any provision for the partnership, the absence of any government amendment which would permit them to introduce the partnership and the acceptance by the Government of Clause 54 mean that they have dropped the partnership and that we can waste no more of our time on it? I hope that that is true, because it would very unwise to waste any more of the negotiators’ time in Brussels in talking about it. It will not fly.
That brings me back to the only practical way I see of avoiding the frictions of a customs frontier with our biggest trading partners and our closest neighbours and friends. When in April this House voted by a large majority to amend the withdrawal Bill to ask the Government to explore the possibility of a customs union with the European Union, it was responding to the concerns of British business, manufacturers, the transport industry, importers, exporters, the CBI, the TUC, Keidanren, the BDI and, of course, anyone awake to the potential problems in Northern Ireland.
As far as I know, nothing has happened since 18 April to change the situation that the House considered then, when it thought it justified to explore the possibility of a customs union, except that it has become clearer that solving the frontier issue will determine whether there will be a withdrawal agreement or we face a cliff edge. It has also become clearer that of the Government’s two options for avoiding the choice, neither work.
I hope that the Government will even at this late stage explore the possibility of a customs union between the UK—if it has left the European Union—and the European Union. I think that this House will have to come back to this question next week when we consider the Trade Bill.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bates for introducing this Second Reading debate. I realise that this Bill has been designated a money Bill and therefore, perhaps fortunately, your Lordships’ House cannot amend it. The House will have opportunities to review and improve the associated Trade Bill at length following its Second Reading next week. It is most unhelpful, and detrimental to the country’s interests, that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, have introduced the amendments to which they have spoken, because whatever agreement may or may not be reached with the European Union on our future trading relationship, we need a new customs regime to be in place before we leave the EU on 29 March 2019. This is necessary whether we ultimately agree a form of the proposals adopted by the Cabinet at Chequers, whether we enter a Canada or Canada plus-type free trade agreement with the EU or whether we leave the EU with no deal agreed and initially trade with our European partners under WTO rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, argues that the Government accepted amendments to this Bill without adequate parliamentary scrutiny, but these matters have been debated at length both in your Lordships’ House and in another place and the Government have committed to giving the House of Commons a vote on the final agreement that they reach with the EU. The passage of either amendment would have no effect on the legislation and this Bill, as a money Bill, can be passed without your Lordships’ consent. Nevertheless, adoption of an amendment expressing regret will strengthen the perception, held widely across the country, that your Lordships’ House does not respect the democratically expressed will of the people that we should leave the EU. That does further harm to the standing and reputation of the House. In addition, it gives further solace to the EU negotiators, who want us to agree to a deal where we remain closely tied to their regulatory regime, and encourages them to believe that we will blink first and ultimately agree to an arrangement whereby we are unable to take advantage of new opportunities to expand our trade with the wider world and whereby we will continue to pay vast sums towards the ever-growing budget of the Union but without any say over how those funds are to be applied.
How can the noble Lord object to the amendment ensuring that we should agree to collect tariffs on behalf of the EU only if the EU agrees to do the same on our behalf? Is my noble friend the Minister confident that the facilitated customs arrangement could be made to work efficiently and that it would not be a deterrent to third countries that might otherwise be keener to enter a free trade agreement with the UK? The FCA clearly would work better if it were reciprocal than if it were just one way. If goods from a third country are imported into an EU member state for onward delivery to the UK in a sector where the UK would have applied a lower tariff rate than that applied by the EU, unless the FCA is made reciprocal the EU state initially importing the goods destined for the UK would have to apply the higher EU tariff and the importer would later have to seek a refund from the UK Exchequer, which would seek reimbursement of the difference from the EU. This would be very cumbersome and would have a negative effect on trade between the third country and the UK via the EU. The FCA is cumbersome enough anyway.
Of course, as noble Lords are aware, Monsieur Barnier has indicated that the EU will have difficulty in accepting the FCA in its proposed form. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, agrees that if we were to agree to collect duties on behalf of another state, we should certainly expect that other state to collect the same on our behalf. Is he also objecting to the amendment that binds the Government by law not to accept a difference between the tax regimes operating in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK? It would again be most unhelpful if the amendment were to be passed, giving the impression to the EU negotiators that your Lordships’ House would be willing to see Northern Ireland develop into a semi-detached province, still effectively a member of the EU in fact, if not in name.
Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party clearly stated in their manifestos at the general election last year that the UK would leave the customs union, yet the noble Lord’s amendment laments the fact that the Bill introduces barriers to securing a UK-EU customs union. Has the Labour Party’s policy changed since the general election? Has this been made clear? The policy adopted by the Conservative Party and maintained by the Government consistently is that we should leave the customs union and the single market. Those who now seek either to remain in the customs union or to create a new customs union do so in the belief that it is more important to continue to trade with the EU in exactly the same manner as we do today, submitting to EU regulatory standards over which we have enjoyed steadily decreasing influence. Those standards are, in many cases, unnecessarily cumbersome and unduly inhibit innovation—for example, in the medical and scientific fields. In recent years when the UK has objected to the adoption of new EU regulations in both goods and services we have invariably been overruled.
Why do we not hear about the costs in terms of jobs that would have been created here, and tax revenues lost to the nation, as a result of companies establishing businesses outside the EU in order to avoid the EU’s suffocating regulatory tentacles? I can understand that the establishment of borders across which supply chains operate will require change and increased reporting, but technology can mitigate that in the same way that it does across the United States-Canada border. I am absolutely not advocating a race to the bottom. I wholly agree with the Government’s policy of maintaining the highest standards across the board, especially in areas such as the environment and food safety. However, high standards do not require in all fields adherence to the unnecessarily bureaucratic standards set by the EU, which offer no real additional protection to the consumer over standards applied by the United States, Japan or other non-EU countries.
In the medical field, for example, too much weight is given to the precautionary principle, which makes it more difficult to gain approval for new life-saving drugs and makes the EU an unfriendly jurisdiction in which to conduct research and development. The chief executive of a major Japanese pharmaceutical company told me during my visit to Japan in July that it is true that Brexit will increase the cost of its European operations, but it has already invested a considerable sum in adapting its corporate structure to what may be necessary post Brexit. On the other hand, he believes that the UK will remain the best place in the world to conduct research and development and introduce new drugs, and that the regulatory environment in the UK post Brexit should encourage such innovation with a more constructive and less bureaucratic approach.
I believe that those who want to avoid changing anything are misguided because they want to keep a relationship with the EU which does not really work well for us and never has. They are prepared to forgo the considerable upside which will accrue if we are truly free from EU shackles and can again apply our influence at the global level, where our enhanced voice in the development of sensible, global-level regulation will offer appropriate and necessary consumer protection without unduly restricting the freedoms to innovate and develop new processes which are necessary for a brighter, more prosperous future for our citizens.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, seeks to tie us into the customs union. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, further seeks a second divisive vote, in the misguided hope that the Liberal Democrats can persuade the people to vote to remain in the customs union and single market. But 80% of the UK’s economy comprises services, of which 75% do not form part of the single market. Only 15% of our output is exported to the single market and in recent years the EU has taken a declining share of our exports.
Noble Lords should read the excellent paper on CPTPP, Trading Tigers, published by Policy Exchange, which illustrates the opportunities available to the UK from acceding to that partnership. The authors do not claim that increased trade with the TPP 11 would immediately replace our EU trade but I believe that the UK’s increasing trade with them and other non-EU trading partners would soon outstrip any damage to UK-EU trade, even under the undesirable scenario where we fail to agree a deal with the EU and trade under WTO rules. The noble Baroness forgets that when Jacques Delors was driving through his plan to create the single market, its negative aspects were widely seen as a move to create a “Fortress Europe”. At that time, the chief concern was the threat posed to European manufacturers by Japanese exporters; Edith Cresson attributed Japanese economic success to her view that they lived like ants.
The Government’s policy—reflecting the manifestos put forward at last year’s general election, which were supported by 85% of voters—is to leave the customs union and the single market. It is therefore absolutely necessary and strongly in this country’s interest to support this Bill, which is necessary to enable the UK to establish its own customs regime and implement its own trade remedy measures. Although the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has said that he will not seek to divide the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has indicated that she will press her amendment. This is also unhelpful and, I believe, contrary to the country’s interests and I urge the House to reject it.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that I disagree with virtually everything he said. As the Bill confirms, the Brexit charabanc is lurching giddily along, dragging our country towards a completely unknown destination. Even at this not-quite 11th hour, no Brexiteer, and certainly not the Prime Minister, has the faintest clue how we will be trading with our biggest partner—Europe—or any other country for that matter. No wonder the pound has plummeted and businesses engaged in any way with the outside world are at their wits’ end. It is therefore hardly a surprise that, although the Bill allows for the creation of a stand-alone customs regime for the UK, there is as yet no idea what shape it will take.
Everybody knows the mantra is “Brexit, dammit”, but nobody knows yet what it means, and maybe we never will until after we crash out into the nirvana of Trumpian free trade. That does not matter a jot because we will be free of Brussels—free, free at last—but God knows what new chains will now restrict our jobs, our prosperity, our businesses and our workers. I am no historian but I cannot think of any equivalent situation our country has ever faced as a result of a conscious act of government policy which says, “We’ve no idea where we’re going but we’re going there anyway”. Has the British political class ever done anything more utterly, profoundly irresponsible? Yet this Parliament, to our utter shame, has so far simply indulged in rubber-stamping it.
It should therefore be no surprise to anyone that the Bill illustrates how neither No. 10 Downing Street nor the arch-Brexiteers in the Conservative Party are now in control of their Brexit fantasies. Neither has a plan as the clock ticks down. What unites them is that it must click down regardless of the consequences. The people have spoken—full stop. We are going we know not where, but we are going anyway. This is rapidly becoming an act of collective national madness.
With the Chequers deal based on her flawed White Paper, the Prime Minister was supposed to be keeping the UK close to the single market after Brexit, with some magical thinking about customs arrangements. Never mind that the services sector, forming a mere 80% of our economy, was abandoned. The importance of the Bill and the parallel Trade Bill should not be underestimated. Borders matter. Those who fantasise that the UK can enjoy frictionless trade under WTO rules need to understand that those rules mean hard borders, including within the island of Ireland. Even under the WTO’s most-favoured-nation rules, if we did not enforce the border in Ireland, we would be in breach of our agreements with other parts of the world, as would be, in parallel, the Republic and the EU. That would be a disaster for the economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic and would gravely threaten the peace and prosperity which have flourished since the Good Friday agreement of 1998, which is a binding treaty recognised under international law to which this Government pay lip service, but which is being steadily undermined by their whole approach to Brexit. No developed country trades purely on WTO rules, and it is fantasy to suggest that Britain should be the first to give it a go. Moreover, less than two weeks ago the director-general of the WTO pooh-poohed the idea that the UK could fall out of the EU straight into compliance with WTO arrangements, pointing out that it would take quite a time to negotiate the transition.
The debates on the Bill in the Commons demonstrated that the Government are a hostage to a minority of their own Back-Benchers, who chose to table four changes as wrecking amendments. The Chequers compromise can be seen as the Prime Minister’s attempt to steer her dysfunctional Cabinet towards a softer Brexit strategy that would mitigate, to some extent, the most damaging economic consequences of a hard or, worse still, a no-deal Brexit, but it started to fall apart at the first hurdle. Rather than risk defeat and a possible government collapse, these European Research Group amendments to the Bill were accepted by No. 10 and now potentially constitute new red lines, which may hinder the conclusion of a successful Article 50 withdrawal agreement.
The amendments in question were, first, to introduce the need for primary legislation if the Government want to keep Britain in a customs union. As my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, have convincingly argued, and as Labour has compellingly argued, the case for a customs union with the EU is overwhelming—in order, among many other things, to avoid rules of origin requirements and check whether goods qualify for preferential tariff arrangements. According to the Government’s own analysis, these rules can burden businesses with additional administrative costs amounting to between 4% and 15%.
Furthermore, once the UK ceases to be regarded as EU territory, UK component parts and products will no longer benefit from zero tariffs as EU products under EU free trade agreements. That means that if the Government’s facilitated customs arrangement does not work, the fallback position will be no customs deal at all, which would be deeply damaging for our manufacturers. This could have a huge impact on UK trade and is the reason why a customs union is absolutely necessary for the sake of British manufacturing, international trade and Northern Ireland’s peace.
A second ERG amendment accepted by the Government ruled out a customs border in the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. This was accepted as in line with the Prime Minister’s previous position, despite her commitment in the UK-EU joint report of 8 December 2017:
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the”,
Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
The purpose of the second ERG amendment seems to be to destroy the negotiating room within which discussions on such backstop arrangements could take place. However, the most substantial and visible impact of the Bill will be at the UK’s borders—seaports and airports—and on our land border with the Republic of Ireland. It allows for the Irish border to return to being a customs border between the UK and Ireland. That means that goods leaving Northern Ireland will have to be cleared for exit from the UK and for entry to the EU.
First, goods crossing the border must be covered by a pre-departure declaration, partly to offer evidence of their status for VAT-free export. Secondly, goods will be able to enter the customs territory only through a designated place of clearance—which, for a land border crossing such as on the island, usually contains facilities for customs examination and clearance, including access to the relevant customs software systems to ensure that detailed information on the goods is submitted for recording and risk analysis purposes, and that correct duties are paid.
Thirdly, goods will be subject to customs duties from both sides. Fourthly, traders are more likely to be subject to requirements for import and export licensing. As the UK leaves the EU, all businesses in Ireland and Northern Ireland that trade across the Irish border will have to be properly registered to do so. Proper rollout of any trusted trader scheme requires time and agreement with trading partners.
Fifthly, the Bill will change common experience for VAT and excise. Import VAT will be charged on all imports from outside the UK. Sixthly, if goods have to be inspected, there has to be the facility and capacity to do so. For the movement of agri-food produce, for example, including livestock, a rigorous veterinary and plant health inspections clearance regime must be in place. All of this illustrates the importance of getting a deal with the EU that avoids the need for customs controls between the EU and the UK.
How ironic it is, then, that this Bill also now contains a provision that risks making such a deal far less likely. The addition of this proposed new clause as a result of ERG dogma has ramifications not just for the Irish border; it also has implications for the current Brexit negotiations at a macro level. This was the Government’s intention in accepting it.
The so-called backstop in the draft withdrawal agreement is intended to prevent the scenario I have outlined previously coming into effect around the Irish border. However, what the ERG amendments, and therefore the subsequent new clause, do—in a fairly crude way—is to prevent that backstop being workable. It forces a scenario in which the Irish border is a customs border in the Bill. More to the point, by making it more difficult for the UK and EU to finalise the withdrawal agreement, it makes such a scenario all the more likely. This is no imaginary problem; there are no harmless consequences.
In July, the Prime Minister made her first substantial visit to Northern Ireland. When there, she visited the village of Belleek, on the Fermanagh-Donegal border. Belleek is in many ways a typical Irish border village. It has a population of Catholics and Protestants, British and Irish citizens, cross-border families and cross-border workers. A good number of such workers are employed by one business that straddles the border, with its front door in the Republic and its back door in the UK. As Theresa May’s entourage descended on the village, that business owner described the impact of the uncertainty around Brexit in a powerful way. “Out here”, he said, “We’re cannon fodder”.
The third ERG amendment Theresa May accepted makes it illegal for Britain to collect EU tariffs at its ports unless Brussels agrees to act on a reciprocal basis. The Government insisted that the amendment was consistent with the customs policy as outlined in the White Paper because they envisaged using a formula to govern the flows of money based on trade patterns between the EU 27 and the UK. However, the White Paper does not explain exactly how this would work, and it seems highly unlikely that the EU will accept such a plan. There are further technical problems with the proposed facilitated customs arrangement, as it would appear to breach elements of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade—GATT—which is part of the World Trade Organization rules.
It is, in any case, a complete and utter delusion that the UK, with a market of 60 million, can improve on the negotiating strength we already have as a member of the EU with a market of 500 million, as far as free trade agreements with third countries are concerned. The point is that trade will become more costly and burdensome outside the EU single market and the customs union, and our businesses and manufacturers will be at a disadvantage compared with their European neighbours and competitors.
The ERG’s fourth amendment concerned VAT. Because the authorities need to know whether goods have crossed the border to properly apply the tax, the EU VAT area is absolutely crucial to avoiding a hard border. We currently have around 25 million customs declarations requiring payment of VAT at the border. That will potentially rise to 255 million after Brexit. Either goods are checked as they cross, requiring hard infrastructure and border friction, as happens in Switzerland and Norway, or we seek to stay in the EU’s system, which operates on the basis of a paper trail to track the movement of goods and requires European Court of Justice rules to apply. If the Government adopt neither option, it opens the UK up to massive fraud where goods enter the country VAT-free and people evade tax, depriving the Treasury—and therefore our already cut, battered and overstretched public services—of crucial revenue.
In conclusion, the debates on the Bill have illustrated that, as the reality of Brexit becomes clearer, the case for it disintegrates. Instead, the case for delaying Brexit and for giving not only Parliament but the people a meaningful vote, or a people’s vote, on any draft withdrawal agreement becomes ever more compelling. I am delighted that my own trade union, the GMB, has today supported the principle of a people’s vote.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, this Bill sets out an alternative customs regime—an alternative to a customs union that has served us well. The Bill is so clearly inadequate that the Government have had to hide behind the designation of a supply Bill, which is obviously designed to thwart sensible democratic scrutiny. We are lucky to have a Minister who has outside experience and sees things from beyond the hall of mirrors here. A lot of his experience is based in the north-east of England, so I am sure that he knows that the Bill sets out a significant downgrade for the United Kingdom—a degradation of our future, not an enhancement.
We currently have a customs and trade relationship with our biggest trading partners that works. Goods move seamlessly, paperwork has been minimised and duty gets paid. Even if everything in the Bill works as the Government expect—which of course it will not—the Minister knows that the nation’s customs regime will be substantially worse than what we have today. Goods will be held up at the border; paperwork will be increased; duty will be dodged; and supply chains will slow, and ultimately bypass the United Kingdom altogether. In the Government’s parlance, we will not have a frictionless system; we will have a great deal of friction. But there is still time for the Minister to renounce the briefs in front of him and submit to what he and others on his Benches know to be true: the customs union and the single market offer so much more to the people of Britain than what is before us today.
Elsewhere, the Government have trumpeted their industrial strategy, highlighting the need to tackle disappointing productivity numbers, which is a Treasury priority. Yet everything that this Bill stands for will reduce productivity. Efficient activity such as just-in-time manufacturing will be totally disrupted. For example, suppliers are already being asked to increase their inventories, massively reducing cash flow in small businesses and adding to costs and to complication. The Government have claimed to be planning for the future, so what does their analysis say that the Bill will deliver in practice? How much will it cost? How many extra people will be needed in both the public sector and in business to administer the red tape? Big business can probably afford it, but small businesses most certainly cannot, as my noble friend Lady Kramer said.
What is the lost opportunity—something that cannot be accounted for—of using our talented people on this activity rather than on something that is actually productive? Does the Minister not agree that we should be using the energy and intellectual resource of our people to address the real challenges facing the country? There are huge global changes going on, never mind the ones we are trying to effect. The march of the digital revolution is going to change everything, and the demographic time bomb stands already as a significant change. Would the Government not rather that the talents of our people were employed on those things rather than on this useless, non-productive activity?
Meanwhile, in the ports and the Channel Tunnel, roll-on roll-off will be replaced by “hang around a minute while we have a look”. What is the contingency plan here? What is the estimated holding capacity that will be required at our ports? What advice will the Government be giving regarding the checking and segregation of loads? People and businesses need to know how to restructure their supply chains to meet these challenges.
We know that the Bill makes us worse off compared to the customs union and the single market. By how much will the customs regime reduce productivity in the United Kingdom? How much further behind France will it take us? How much GDP growth are the Government prepared to surrender in order to push the policy through—1% per year, 2% per year? The compounded effect of that reduction in growth in GDP will be disastrous—but of course this Government will be long gone before the real effects are felt.
There is more, not least—as we heard so eloquently just now from the noble Lord, Lord Hain—to do with Ireland and the border. Brexiteers have huffed and puffed and say that the issue is exaggerated. Then they posit some solution that has not been invented yet and clearly is not practical. The Bill creates two discrete customs systems on the island of Ireland. Nothing in the Bill facilitates a border solution that maintains the Good Friday agreement. That is because the two conditions of having two customs regimes and the Good Friday agreement are mutually exclusive. This Bill is anathema to the Good Friday agreement.
Much else needs the proper scrutiny of this House—scrutiny that is being denied. For example, we have heard a lot already about the facilitated customs agreement. We should thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for explaining just how simple it will be to operate. In fact, it is impractical. How do the Government expect it to work? What plumbing will go together to make it work? How will the Bill enable the maintenance of non-tariff trade in both directions? As we heard from previous speakers, it seems clear that this will be extremely difficult. Who will maintain and track the rules of origin, and how? What are the details behind the rules for outward processing and repair? Is that a loophole? If not, how will we make sure that it works properly? How will the provisions to offer preferential access to developing countries change from what we have, and who will benefit? That is just a short list of all the missing details that we need—as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr—to understand the plumbing of the customs agreement. These details will be left hanging as the Tory party continues to squabble among itself.
The Bill represents a proposal to make things worse for the citizens of the United Kingdom—not just slightly worse but very seriously so. The Government know that; the Minister knows that. I echo the mention of history: perhaps the Minister could cast his mind back, or get his officials to, and give us an example of where any Government have made changes that they know will downgrade the living conditions of their citizens. What other Government in history have knowingly made such a self-harming decision?
The Liberal Democrats oppose the Bill. Leaving the customs union and the single market will cost the people of the United Kingdom dearly. That individual cost should be explained, and voted on in a people’s vote. The Bill establishes a separate customs regime from that of the European 27, so there can never be a friction-free border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. That means that the Good Friday agreement cannot be honoured. The hiding of the Bill behind the false status of a supply Bill shows the Government at their weakest, and the grabbing of so many Henry VIII powers for the Executive is tantamount to unconstitutional. That is why I will support my noble friend’s amendment to the Motion.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I hope that his speech has engaged the Minister’s business experience and encourages him to take back to his colleagues in government the significantly persuasive detail of the argument he presented. I also hope that the Minister will refer particularly to that in his response to the debate.
I do not suppose that this will be much of a surprise to anybody but I support the UK’s continued membership of a customs union with the European Union. However, like my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, I recognise the necessity of this legislation for an alternative customs regime should we find ourselves out of the European Union without a deal—which, frankly, looks increasingly likely—or with a deal that requires us to leave the customs union.
This is a complex piece of legislation. It consists of 58 clauses and nine schedules and includes provisions covering some of the most complex areas of legislation: import duty, export duty, VAT and excise duty. It is astonishing that it comes before your Lordships’ House in the state it is presently in. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the designation and the motivation for the designation of the Bill as a supply Bill. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the sort of scrutiny that this Bill demands is being avoided. Candidly, in the time that I have been in your Lordships’ House I have never before contributed to a debate on a Bill that was designated as a supply Bill. When I was preparing for this debate I wondered what the point of it was, but having listened to the speeches thus far, I can now see that this is a significant opportunity for people to make good arguments, even if they do not affect the legislation before the House.
These restrictions were not before the House of Commons. The other place had the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill fully but it can hardly be said—and I read the report of all the debate there—that it has done so. I draw attention in particular to the proceedings in the other place on Monday 16 July, when both Report and Third Reading were conducted over four seriously timetabled hours, with reducing times offered to speakers as the debate progressed. A minuscule number of Members of the other place managed to contribute to the debate. The consequence was that, as the Official Report shows—these statistics do not particularly prove anything but are indicative of the position—Report and Third Reading are contained within 127 columns of the report, covering the less than four timetabled hours of debate. Sixty-five of the columns are necessary just to record the amendments that were considered and the votes thereon, and only 59 columns record the debate. It is not possible for the Government to come to this House and say that the Bill has been scrutinised or—as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, told us—that it has been considered in the other place and voted on. It has not been considered at all. I spent more time reading the amendments and looking over the votes in the Official Report than I spent reading the debate. It is a disgrace. What is the position of the Government and the Brexiteers on how this squares with taking back control to our Parliament?
While I am on the subject, perhaps the Minister, in his summation, will explain to your Lordships how telling the people who run businesses in Northern Ireland that, in the event of a no-deal exit from the European Union, if they want to know how to conduct cross-border business, they should ask a foreign government how to do it, is consistent with taking back control of our own destiny. That appears to be the compelling argument for us leaving the European Union in the first place. Who thought that that was the right response to give to the people of Northern Ireland?
Among the amendments considered on Report, which my noble friend Lord Hain went through in some detail, were four put forward by the ERG—the European Research Group—which were designed to kill off the possibility of the Prime Minister agreeing a Brexit deal on the basis of the Chequers agreement. It appears that they have worked. I understand that they have been aided by the position that the remainers in the Conservative Party have also taken on the Chequers agreement, and that it is now dead in the water, but they certainly would have worked on their own. Recent evidence suggests that the Prime Minister is now hemmed in by both sides of her party. In the current environment, the space for a deal that all sides of the Conservative Party and the EU 27 can agree is virtually non-existent.
It is incomprehensible why the Government accepted these amendments. All of them were designed to undermine their preferred Brexit policy. It is also instructive that the Minister, in his opening remarks, completely ignored all these amendments. He referred to amendments in a generic sense but made no particular reference. We talk about ignoring the elephant in the room, but there is a massive elephant in this Bill. It significantly changes both the Bill and the Government’s policy, yet in the Minister’s introduction of the Bill to your Lordships’ House, it was as though it did not exist. As the Minister knows, I admire him greatly. I suspect that the reason why he did that was that he could not bring himself to put forward the argument that was asserted by Mel Stride, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in some very short sentences in summing up the debate on Report, when he said that these amendments not only are not as damaging as they may seem but are consistent with the Government’s position. There is no persuasive argument for that.
An analysis of the amendments, which my noble friend Lord Hain has done, shows that they damage the Government’s position significantly and undermine it completely. I challenge the Minister, if he is able, to give us not bland assertions over a couple of sentences, as his colleague in the other place did, but a serious analysis of these amendments and their effect on the Government’s position. If he wants to explain to us that they do not change the Government’s position, can he please share them with us in summarising the debate? I had intended to go through each amendment to explain why they have that effect, but my noble friend did that for me. I could not do it any better so I will rest with the arguments he put forward.
Over the next couple of minutes—recognising the constraints that are upon me in this speech and upon this House, and recognising that I see little point in referring to any specific provisions of the Bill, but out of respect for those beyond this House who have taken the time and trouble to consider the provisions of the Bill and to provide us with briefings for today’s proceedings—I would like to make reference to one or two points, and to two particular briefings. I invite the Minister, at least in the fullness of time, and perhaps in written form, to respond to the points made by both the Law Society of Scotland and the Fairtrade Foundation, whose briefings I received and both of which impressed me.
The Law Society of Scotland makes a compelling case about the scope of the delegated powers contained in the Bill—echoing concerns over the use of Henry VIII powers, as discussed significantly in the context of the then European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—and about the importance of ensuring that the Government are obliged to consult stakeholders in the process of setting regulations to establish a customs regime. As is its wont, the society proposes in its briefing paper a number of very specific and well-argued amendments to the Bill. I ask the Minister to consider these amendments and, perhaps, to respond to the House in some fashion about the Government’s position in relation to them.
The Fairtrade Foundation provided an interesting briefing which covers both the trade and customs Bills. It points out that this Bill, as drafted, makes no reference to sustainable development and would allow tariff changes to take place without regard to their impact on developing countries. It hopes that the Bill will be amended to include sustainable development criteria to which the Secretary of State must have regard in Clauses 8(5) and 39(4). I am completely confident that it would not be the Minister’s intention for tariff changes to take place without regard to their impact on developing countries. I trust that in due course the Minister will take this into consideration and respond to the point being made in this briefing. Perhaps a suitable amendment to the Trade Bill could address this deficiency if it is not possible to do so in this Bill. I assume that the Government have copies of these briefings; if not, they can be provided.
Finally, I want to make a specific point about customs and excise. I am in possession of a briefing from the Scotch Whisky Association. This is a significant industry not just for Scotland but for the United Kingdom, with £4.3 billion or more of exports. It is a very active co-operator and partner with the Government in the customs and excise environment. Tomorrow, I will attend a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Scotch Whisky and I know that representatives of the industry will ask me—because they do so every time I meet them—what the timetable is for the implementation of these new customs arrangements.
This is an organisation which has contributed to the development and introduction of the present European customs arrangements that allow spirits to be traded across the European Union, the excise duty being paid only when the goods arrive at their destination. It is called the EMCS. The industry helped the Government to build this system, so it knows the problems, for the industry and for the Government, associated with building new customs systems. Frankly—I summarise bluntly what they say—its members tell me that it is now too late for us to get new customs or excise duty arrangements not only for the EU but for their industry in time for any of the expected dates on which we will leave the European Union. It will take years.
Therefore, perhaps the Minister can give some indication of how long—once this Bill is passed and becomes law, as inevitably it will—this industry should expect to wait before customs arrangements are worked through and bedded down so that it can continue to make the sort of contribution that it does to the economy of this country.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow so many excellent speeches. This Bill is meant to help us deal with any outcomes that arise from our negotiations for leaving the EU. Its aim of establishing an independent UK customs regime based on the EU regime, adjusting VAT and giving powers over customs duties, makes sense if we are leaving the EU single market and customs union, although of course ostensibly—I will return to this in a moment—the Bill also gives the Government the power to establish a new customs union.
I welcome the hard work carried out in the other place by honourable and right honourable colleagues and many others to maximise the use of affirmative procedures to ensure that important taxes and tariffs are properly scrutinised by Parliament, and I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the sunset clauses—all changes called for by the excellent House of Lords Delegated Powers Committee.
Following last-minute amendments narrowly passed, by just three votes, in the other place, unfortunately the Bill before us today is poorly drafted with some worrying potential flaws. The UK, for example, is now able to enter into a customs union with the EU only if this is passed by a separate Act of Parliament. From a scrutiny and consistency point of view, this seems problematic. Why should an Act of Parliament lock be just for one territory? The scrutiny that comes with joining or establishing a customs union should surely apply equally to all territories. This amendment also means that the Bill cannot now be the conduit for the UK to be in a customs union with the EU, even if that becomes government policy. The Government would still need primary legislation, which is contradictory given that this Bill is the very primary legislation that should give the Government the power to do that, having repatriated those powers from Brussels. It is of concern that we would allow bad legislation to reach the statute. Of course, I respect the House of Lords’ constitutional role to resist amending a supply Bill, but the Government must be careful not to abuse their constitutional role.
This important piece of technical and complex legislation has been rendered incoherent and inconsistent to appease the European Research Group, while actually killing the main government proposal for customs in the process. If we wanted the EU to take the Chequers proposal seriously, it was not terrible helpful for the Government to accept the ERG’s wrecking amendments to the Bill almost immediately. The Government have said that they do not view these as wrecking amendments, but they were clearly intended as such: the EU thinks they are such and many on these Benches can see that too—indeed, many noble Lords have stated so this evening. Arguing that black is white does not change the colour.
Clause 54 is not consistent with the Government’s supposedly agreed position. Section 1.2.1 of the Chequers White Paper refers to the facilitated customs arrangement that the Government hope to enter into with the EU, and I have welcomed that as a starting point to get us to the negotiating table. It states that,
“the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK”.
So the Government now find themselves in direct conflict with their own White Paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and so many others have already stated, the EU cannot be expected to do this. Worryingly, therefore, the ERG amendments are forcing us closer to no deal.
I note with disquiet the increasing voices that seemingly are willing to support no deal. Moving to a regime based on WTO rules would not be in our national interest. Let us be absolutely clear: no deal is unquestionably a bad deal. It would be disastrous for our country and, indeed, for the EU—it would be like launching an economic war on the EU. The declaration that this is “not the end of the world” is scant comfort for our country. Yes, no deal would not be as bad as nuclear Armageddon, but the British people were promised that Brexit would mean a better future. By demanding the impossible of the EU and then blaming it for not giving it to us, we cannot help our country’s future.
The Conservatives are the party of free trade. How then could we seriously be countenancing a no-deal outcome which would mean losing the great free trade deals that we currently have, not just with the EU but with so many other countries outside the EU, which our membership has delivered? Operating under WTO rules would mean that we must follow the internationally agreed norms. We would undermine our integrated supply chains and put British manufacturing at risk. This is not what people voted for.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and many others have so rightly said, no deal would be disastrous for Northern Ireland and Ireland. There are no technological solutions that would allow for a frictionless and free border without a proper customs partnership—or whatever one calls it; some kind of customs union—and regulatory alignment. The lack of serious concern for this issue, and the careless statements dismissing concerns about honouring the Good Friday agreement, should, I would have hoped, be anathema to the Conservative and Unionist Party. However, the obsession with “Brexit at all costs” seems to trump all else.
The Bill is about tariffs, but what about the vitally important non-tariff barriers and rules of origin, which would hamper our trade with or without this Bill? Unless we can retain customs union and regulatory alignment, or something that delivers the same but may not be called that, it is difficult to see our national economic success continuing.
I had other points to make, specifically on various amendments, but as so many other noble Lords have expressed the same sentiments so well, I finally ask my noble friend to please relay concerns from these Benches and respectfully request that more care be taken before sending a Bill to this House in this state. It is particularly important to legislate responsibly if the Bill in question is a supply Bill or a money Bill.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister gave a very succinct introduction to the Bill but, looking at it, it is pretty hefty. It would normally be dismissed as technocratic and complex, but it is nevertheless more substantial than perhaps the Government or the Minister suggest. Moreover, it is on a subject that neither this House nor the whole of Parliament has considered as part of a legislative programme for more than 40 years. All the issues, such as tariffs and some of the other things that are either dealt with or partially dealt with in the Bill, have been matters for the EU. Moreover, the denial of this House’s detailed scrutiny by designating this a supply Bill is an affront to this House and its committees’ constructive role in dealing with this very difficult Brexit issue.
Broadly, I make three points. First, it is a nonsense for us to consider the Bill separately from the Trade Bill that will reach us next week and from wider issues. There are a number of reasons for that, many of which have already been spelled out. Among other things, the Trade Bill sets up the Trade Remedies Authority. It contains the outline of the powers of that authority and the situations in which they would arise. But the actual fiscal remedies and some of the reasons for engaging with those fiscal remedies are in this Bill but without the overall framework, which is in the Trade Bill. The two need to be considered together and we need to address what kind of new, independent trade remedies body we need in those circumstances.
One problem with the Bill is that it is inevitably a contingency Bill, like much of the other legislation that has passed through this House in the Brexit context. But a contingency Bill should be able to deal with all the potential contingencies. As far as I can see, it deals with very few of them. It gives the powers, and some of those powers are subject to Henry VIII procedures, but it does not specify in which contexts those powers will operate.
We all know that there is still a range of possibilities for the final outcome of negotiations, which will probably not be known in November and will involve a long drawn-out process of coming up with a full-blown trade agreement with the EU. It is looking on the optimistic side that we will eventually reach such a deal, but it will be complex. If it is a free trade agreement, certain consequences follow. There will be consequences for our tariff levels, which will presumably be dealt with in the EU, but countries that are not in a free-trade agreement with us would have to abide by WTO rules. In other words, there would have to be an equivalent for all non-free trade agreement countries. That is a constraint on the powers that appear to be in this Bill.
We are of course in a situation where the Government are proposing the Chequers proceedings, which have in part been cut off at the knees by some of the amendments, referred to by others, that were passed in the Commons the other month. However, some are not appropriate for the different potential outcomes. If we are in a Chequers-facilitated customs arrangement, which the EU is at present rejecting, certain requirements need to be laid down in the Bill itself, including procedures, for example, on rules of origin. I think it was my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe who said that at the moment there is a contradiction on how rules of origin are likely to be proceeded with. They will be proceeded with in one context for imports and another for exports from the UK to the EU.
A lot of questions have not been answered and they can be answered only by a full debate on all the aspects of trade policy and trade legislation before us, and how they would apply in different situations. To take another example, we know that currently both this Bill and the Trade Bill reflect the Government’s intention to roll over the existing EU-third country arrangements and simply apply them to the UK. However, you first have to ask the third country whether it will agree to that, and indeed in some circumstances whether the EU would agree to it because it is not as simple as all that, particularly when dealing with agreements involving a high degree of agricultural trade. You then have issues such as import quotas, which have to be split between the UK and the EU in the event of our leaving. Those quota issues are not addressed in the Bill.
There are other internal contradictions in the legislation, most of which have already been referred to because they arise from the amendments made at the behest of the ERG in another place. I happened to be in Brussels with your Lordships’ Select Committee on the day those amendments were passed. I am the only member of the committee present because the others are meeting upstairs. There was bemusement on the part of EU officials, including Monsieur Barnier himself, about what seemed to have happened; namely, the Prime Minister’s shiny golden Chequers agreement had been undermined within days by accepting the amendments produced by the ERG. Some of the amendments are ambiguous and I hope the Government’s lawyers are addressing the particulars. I will take just two examples, one of which is now Clause 54. It arose because of the need for reciprocity as far as the movers of those amendments were concerned, but no one is proposing reciprocity. We said in the Chequers proposals that we would be prepared to collect EU taxes at our borders. We have made no proposition that the EU should collect our taxes. Since we know that the EU is sniffy about the notion that we should collect its taxes, its representatives are hardly likely to fall over themselves with glee at the proposal that they should be subcontracted to collect our taxes. Reciprocity in itself does not make sense in the context of the Chequers agreement.
It is also true—potentially disastrously so—that the following clause, Clause 55, which deals with Northern Ireland, could scupper any agreement on Northern Ireland, which is difficult enough in any case. Let me make it clear that I am not in favour of a border down the Irish Sea, but it is true that already, before we have left the EU, Northern Ireland is dealt with separately in some respects on trade issues. It has a regulatory structure for food and farming that is effectively the same as that of the Republic of Ireland. It is a single epidemiological area in relation to animal disease. There are other provisions in terms of the ability to acquire Irish citizenship and therefore EU citizenship, which mean that Northern Ireland is being dealt with differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. As my noble friend has said, the common electricity market will also have to be dealt with differently from the energy market in the rest of the United Kingdom. To lay down in that amendment that no such separate provision, which implies no regulatory provision, should apply to Northern Ireland that does not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom, seems yet another barrier to a proper agreement on the Northern Irish border.
My last point is probably the most important. I cannot find anywhere in the Bill provision for parliamentary scrutiny of future trade negotiations and outcomes—and therefore tariffs and tariff regulation —which is the subject matter of the Bill. Before we were EU members, all treaties were regarded as deliverable through the royal prerogative; they were therefore a matter for the Government, not Parliament. That was modified slightly in 2010 as far as treaties in general are concerned, but trade treaties over the past 40 years have very much been subject to scrutiny in great detail in the European Parliament. Our negotiating stance and tactics and the final outcome have been subject to scrutiny by European Parliament representatives. We propose moving to a situation where such trade agreements will not be dealt with like that, at least not explicitly, in default of any government commitment. We are reverting to the time when medieval monarchs made these deals between themselves and we were sheltered under the royal prerogative.
It is not only Europe that is subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny; so are potential partners with Europe. Congress had a major role when the US was trying to negotiate the TTIP with the EU, as did the Canadian Parliament. We need a determination by this House and another place for a strong, authoritative international trade committee, either jointly or in both Houses, to oversee our future arrangements, in the context of which the detailed propositions in the Bill will operate. Without that, we will take back control not for the people’s representatives but for the benefit of the Executive alone.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Whitty said about the need for proper parliamentary oversight. I also support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which I will vote for if they press them.
Almost everyone except the Minister accepts that the Chequers policy on tariffs and customs is now defunct. The Minister knows it to be true; he just cannot say so. The Bill is essentially a trade destruction Bill in that it helps to dismantle our current membership of the European customs union and single market without any policy, let alone a credible strategy, to put in its place. I would say that this is the height of Executive irresponsibility, but coming from a Government who have turned irresponsibility into an art form and created in Brexit a giant political Ponzi pyramid scheme waiting to collapse, it is sadly par for the course.
However, I want to concentrate my remarks on one issue. The position of Northern Ireland was precarious before the Bill and impossible after it because of the Rees-Mogg new clause—Clause 55—which the Government accepted in the Commons at the last minute to stave off certain defeat. It reads as follows:
“It shall be unlawful for Her Majesty’s Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain”.
We all know the clause’s genesis: in the European negotiations leading to the EU and UK’s joint report last December, Mrs May accepted the necessity of a backstop in respect of Northern Ireland whereby if new hard border or customs controls of any kind were necessitated by treaty provisions—or their absence—affecting Great Britain after Brexit, Northern Ireland would remain subject to European law and customs and trade provisions to ensure “full regulatory alignment”. Mrs May struggled hard to avoid a commitment to such alignment and the backstop but she had no choice, for two reasons: the Government’s pledge and treaty obligations to observe the Good Friday agreement, and the reality that the Republic of Ireland would simply have vetoed any EU negotiating provision that did not guarantee that there would be no border infrastructure or mobile border controls between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
As I said, Mrs May struggled hard against those provisions, so much so that when she was in Belfast last month—in a visit orchestrated and supervised by Arlene Foster, the DUP leader who has Mrs May at her beck and call—the Prime Minister disowned the backstop, saying that it should not be a legal mechanism in European law and should be time limited. In other words, it should be a backstop that is not a backstop, like an insurance policy that does not provide any insurance. That analogy is a bit close to the bone because British insurance policies will lose a lot of their insurance cover if we leave the European Union next March without a deal.
In saying this, Mrs May is parroting the critique of the Northern Ireland backstop which, disgracefully, is now par for the course among Brexiters. When I challenged Mr Nigel Farage about this in a debate last week, he said that the concerns about Northern Ireland were,
“entirely got up by Barnier”,
and that, anyway, Ireland was a “tiddly” country. This echoes Mr Boris Johnson who attacks Mrs May every day for letting Ireland become the “tail wagging the dog” of Brexit. Not to be outdone, Mr Rees-Mogg has suggested that the answer to the Irish problem is for the Republic of Ireland to follow us in leaving the European Union. If it does not, we might need searches at or near the border,
“like there were in the Troubles”.
In other words, this is a choice between neo-colonialism and a return to the politics of the 1980s which, I am afraid, sums up Mr Rees-Mogg’s approach to Brexit as a whole. Whatever else Mrs Thatcher did in the 1980s, she did not seek to leave the European Union.
These attempts to undermine the Good Friday agreement and the Irish backstop are utterly reprehensible —indeed, chilling to anyone with any experience of Ireland. The speech by my noble friend Lord Hain was very much to the point. Despite this, the Irish backstop is still the formal negotiating position of both the United Kingdom and the European Union. Thanks to your Lordships, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act enshrines in statute that any withdrawal agreement must conform to the Good Friday agreement.
To return to last December’s EU/UK joint report, your Lordships will recall that it was nearly derailed at the last minute because Arlene Foster and Mr Rees-Mogg worked out that, if there had to be “full regulatory alignment” within Ireland, but Great Britain was leaving the customs union and the single market, then there would have to be a tariff and customs barrier down the Irish Sea. To forestall this—in yet another layer of the Brexit Ponzi pyramid—Mrs May gave a commitment that there would be no hard border down the Irish Sea, nor within Ireland. As your Lordships appreciate only too clearly, after our 150 hours of debate on the then European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, this means that any Brexit which involves Great Britain leaving the customs union and the single market is not possible unless something fundamental gives.
This brings us to Chequers. As the House knows, the Cabinet imploded after Chequers, with the resignations of the Foreign Secretary, the DExEU Secretary and a string of junior Ministers. The Prime Minister was forced to appoint Mr Raab as her Brexit negotiator and thereby disown her own Chequers policy of “a facilitated customs arrangement”. This language was an attempt to disguise a customs union. It was, unsurprisingly, rumbled by Arlene Foster and Mr Rees-Mogg within minutes, which is why the Prime Minister was forced to concede new Clause 55, prohibiting any customs regime for Great Britain which is different from that in Northern Ireland. So we now face a policy which is completely impossible unless Brexit involves no change of any substance in the customs union or the single market in their application to the entire United Kingdom.
There is no point in my pressing the Minister on these fundamental issues of government Brexit strategy because he will simply read out his brief, but can I ask him two specific questions? First, do the Government continue to support a backstop which has legal force and is not time limited? Secondly, does the Minister accept that no deal, in the form in which the Government presented it as an option last week, is incompatible with the Good Friday agreement? It is possible for the Minister to give a one-word answer to both questions. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister—whom I greatly respect—gives me a straight “yes” to both or whether he is forced to dissemble. If he dissembles, people in Ireland will be even more alarmed than they are today.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the powers of this House in respect of this Bill are, as many speakers have said, limited by convention as it is brought forward, rightly or wrongly, as a supply Bill, so there is no power to amend it. For practical purposes, our scrutiny is limited to this Second Reading debate, so it is important that the Minister, who is well known for giving serious and clear answers to questions, does precisely that to the important points that have been raised from all quarters of the House, particularly given the chaotic circumstances that marked the passage of the Bill in the Commons and that have led to many of the questions posed today. There is no lack of them.
I will first raise a point that has not been raised much in the debate hitherto—perhaps not at all. If I have understood the matter correctly, and the Minister will certainly correct me if I am wrong, under the Government’s preferred option for the outcome of the Brexit negotiations—namely, a deal struck this autumn which would include a withdrawal treaty containing a 21-month effectively standstill period—there will be no question of raising any supply under this Bill before January 2021 at the earliest. We should not forget that the 21-month period is likely to prove grossly inadequate—most people now think that it is—and will need to be extended in one way or another by some means or another.
During the transitional period of however long, be it 21 months or longer, the UK, as I understand it— the Government are in agreement with this—will remain within the EU’s customs union and be subject to the EU’s budgetary rules and procedures. So the scope for using the powers in this Bill will be nil. The only circumstances in which the Bill would be used earlier would be if there was no deal, which would give rise to the need for the powers in it. But the Government say that it is not their preferred option to have no deal and that they fervently wish to get a deal—and they had better get one, because the consequences of going over the cliff in March 2019 are dire indeed. So why not bring forward this Bill in the early months of 2019, and only if by then it is clear that the transitional period will not be available—a period during which we are debarred from using the powers in the Bill, if I have understood it correctly? Could the cause for this haste be explained largely by the Government’s doubts as to whether, in circumstances where there was no deal, there would be a majority in Parliament to pass the Bill at all? In any case, legislating now for a no-deal outcome sends the worst possible message to our EU partners about whether we really are negotiating in good faith.
That is made all the more problematic by the next set of questions that I will put, relating to the amendments to the Bill that the Government accepted in extremis in the Commons. The amendments were put forward by the rather oddly named European Research Group—odd because I cannot remember it ever having done a bit of research. They were put forward quite explicitly as amendments designed to wreck the Cabinet’s Chequers negotiating position. That was stated quite clearly in the full light of day. The Government clearly shared the view that they were wrecking amendments—otherwise, why on earth did they put on a three-line Whip to vote against the amendments? Then, suddenly, the clouds cleared, the sun shone and the Government decided that they were not wrecking amendments after all and were acceptable. As Dr Johnson said, impending execution concentrates the mind remarkably. Will the Minister give some account of the thought processes behind that volte-face?
Two of the amendments in particular require further detailed explanation. Several noble Lords have gone over them and I shall do so briefly again. The first relates to the collection of customs duties on imports, both on imported goods coming to the EU via the UK and on goods coming to the UK via an EU member state. Under the Government’s Chequers plan for a facilitated customs arrangement, we would hand over to the EU duties on goods merely transiting the UK, but we would not expect the EU to do likewise for goods arriving to us, for example, via Rotterdam. That latter requirement has now been spatchcocked into the Bill by the European Research Group amendments, and will therefore be on the statute book: that is what we are being asked to agree this afternoon. Has that amended proposal—the one that requires reciprocity—been put to the EU 27? That is a quite simple question: yes or no? If it has been put to them, have they rejected it, accepted it or just cleared their throat? Or are the British Government’s post horses still labouring between Aix and Ghent? Perhaps the noble Lord can say where we are on that.
I will ask him again: was it not, and is it not, a wrecking amendment with respect to Chequers? I think that it is. Or are the Government perhaps hoping to get agreement in Brussels on their original proposition, without reciprocity, and then return to Parliament to repeal the amendment that they were forced to accept in July? That would be a pretty gruesome situation.
Then there is the amendment relating to the systems for charging value added tax. This amendment, if I understand it correctly—again, the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—forbids the UK remaining in any EU system for charging VAT. But that will surely inevitably introduce a new element of friction, a new element of bureaucracy, into UK-EU trade. If so, it will cut right across the main objectives of the facilitated customs arrangement. Another wrecking amendment, perhaps? Perhaps the Minister can explain how that is to be managed.
Finally, how satisfied are the Government that the provisions of the proposed facilitated customs arrangement are, in reality, compatible with WTO rules? Have they consulted the WTO on the matter? Normally, exporters expect to know which rate of duty they will pay when dispatching their goods. That will not necessarily be the case under the proposed arrangement.
I apologise for raising some rather detailed questions, but these are important matters that need clarification before the Bill passes, as it necessarily will, on to the statute book. In any case, I fear that, in the absence of fully satisfying explanations, I shall be supporting either or both of the amendments that have been put before the House.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to reinforce the point made by a number of the speakers on all sides of the House, particularly by my noble friends Lord Browne and Lord Whitty: that we share the view of many people that this Bill is inexplicably linked to the Trade Bill. As I will be leading for the Opposition on that Bill, I thought I would dwell on a couple of the points that link the two Bills, in a way that I hope will be helpful to the future debate.
Having said that, it is important to recognise that the Bill as drafted is, in the narrow sense, a supply Bill—it undeniably deals with taxation issues and tariff arrangements—but it lacks a wider context in which these things can be properly assessed. Scrutiny would have been one way forward on that, but I think there will be room within the Trade Bill to pick up on some of the points made today. I give notice to the Government that, given that the Trade Remedies Authority is dealt with in the Trade Bill, it would seem possible to amend that Bill and thereby change what is currently going through in the customs Bill before us.
This has been a good debate, which has exposed many issues that will need to be returned to during the Trade Bill debate or elsewhere. Like many others, I do not think there is much point in repeating those issues here. For me, what still needs to be addressed, perhaps during that Bill’s Second Reading next week, is: what exactly constitutes a trade Bill appropriate for an independent United Kingdom? I say this not in any political sense but because there has been an absence of debate and discussion on this throughout the country since we lost direct responsibility for it in 1972. During that period, two big things have happened.
First, people have become more interested in trade as a social policy issue—something that needs to be looked at and interrogated more directly than it currently is. Within that, there needs to be further consideration of how to get away from understanding trade in terms of a physical movement of goods. Clearly, services are heavily involved and need their own consideration, but opportunities are now rare to purchase goods without having to consider the services that relate to them. However, it is not restricted to that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, we have to think carefully now about other barriers to trade. Whether they are regulatory or done to restrict access or use, all these things have an impact on trade which will not be dealt with if we focus only on the tariffs to be charged, now or on behalf of others, then collected and passed on.
Secondly, we have to look at trade policy as decisions on it are taken which affect other aspects such as employment, development impacts in third countries, impacts on the environment and human rights. These issues are much more widely discussed and debated in civic society today; many Members of the House will have been lobbied in anticipation of the Trade Bill, which will raise these issues. I am not saying that we will necessarily want to espouse all of them, as some involve rather narrow interests. Nevertheless, they raise a rather wider context in which we have to debate our trade policy and we must not ignore them.
On the narrow point of the role and function of the Trade Remedies Authority, there will be a series of debates on amendments which will be brought forward. They will look at its independence and explore what these two new concepts of public interest and economic interest will be in practice because without understanding those, it is not possible to understand how decisions will be taken by that body and what impact they will have on our trade activities.
We have touched in a number of ways on the role of the devolved Administrations in trade policy. If that is to be brought back from Brussels and given to the devolved Administrations, it must follow that structural changes will be needed in how we organise matters relating to trade policy to accommodate their views and aspirations, and the changes that they would like to see. At the moment, the Board of Trade is a possible way in which to do that but there are other issues, which I know the Government are thinking about. We will need to have more detail about committee structures in Parliament and on whether there will be something jointly between the two Houses, or perhaps a role for the House of Lords to develop its expertise, pursuant to the loss of work that will come through for the European Union committees. It could have a role in sectoral issues and of course in geographical issues, which will need to be brought forward. In any case, if we are to at least emulate what is happening in Europe on trade policy at the moment, we will need to find ways of bringing into the process the civic society elements which are currently excluded from discussions on trade policy in the UK. A role must be found for them: whether that is through some form of joint committee, or a process which will allow those who have views to take them forward in some form of debate or discussion, has yet to be decided.
Looking back on the history of this Bill, we are perhaps omitting from our debate today the fact that it had to be stopped earlier in the process because it was felt that it would not be able to deal with the issues that had been raised. It is a mystery to me why the Government decided that they were in a position to get the Bill through and that there would be some value in that result. Perhaps they might still consider whether there would be some benefit if this whole Bill were subsumed into the Trade Bill, and consideration given in the round as we go forward. It may be too late to stop the machine in its tracks—I do not look hopefully at the Minister for that—but it would be wrong to make a decision about a Bill dealing with a narrow issue when there is the prospect of a wider debate and discussion on the Trade Bill, which is coming down the track.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I look forward to, if not a double act, many similar fellow contributions on the Trade Bill. I very strongly agree with him that, regrettably, many issues that we would have raised on the Bill will have to be raised during the passage of the Trade Bill. That is certainly not ideal, but this House’s voice must be heard. When we ask questions, the Government must listen.
We are engaged in the first negotiations in our country’s history to make a trading relationship harder. The Bill is the first key set of barriers to be created in this new relationship of erecting barriers rather than removing them. It is creating unnecessary uncertainty and cost and will make our trading nation’s story one of new barriers and burdens. The relationship can be as frictionless as possible, but there will be new sources of friction. On the basis of the negotiations so far, and from what we are able to discern from the Government’s position and the disagreement within the Government, there will be friction upon friction for the foreseeable future. There were epochal debates in this House on the Corn Laws and on free trade a century ago, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. We now have this Bill, which, owing to the cynical connivance, if not cowardice, of Ministers, we will not be able to scrutinise fully or seek to amend.
Why is it important? It should be important to all sides, whether they supported Brexit or remain in the referendum. Many on the leave side said before the referendum, and many noble Lords have consistently said since—making a compelling argument—that staying in a single market for goods, with all the regulations that that would necessarily bring and the European Court of Justice’s ultimate interpretation power of the common rulebook, is not consistent with Brexit. Now we have the Government saying that that is wholly consistent with Brexit. These are fundamental questions raised by the Bill and we have merely a couple of hours to discuss them. The House has considerable time for the Minister—I agree with other noble Lords in that regard—but this is no time for a tactic to reduce Parliament’s and this House’s proper role of reflection on and scrutiny of the Bill.
Many issues have been raised. My noble friend Lady Kramer raised fundamental questions about how the Bill will interact with rules of origin, which are a core element for many of our key trading businesses, which need certainty on this. Why is it important? It is important because it is critical to any operation of an FCA, but the Government have said that the rules of origin aspect will require no great burden of checks and investigations on whether a product being imported into or exported from the UK will comply with such regulations. Paragraph 17c of the Government’s White Paper referred to,
“for example … the point at which the good is substantially transformed into a UK product”,
and said that 96% of all such goods would not be liable for check. However, more than 40% of all goods that receive an EU tariff are of an intermediate nature. A good of an intermediate nature by definition must satisfy rules of origin regulations. The Government have given no indication of how such checks will be done or whether our goods or those we import into the UK will be able to comply with rules of origin obligations. Clearly, under the Bill there is an intention to have a differential tariff rate on the basis of those regulations. If that is based on no checks, it is incumbent on the Government to be clear about how that can work. That is only one of the questions raised by Peers in this Chamber today. My noble friend Lord Fox asked 17 sensible and substantial questions—I counted them. They were unanswered in the Commons, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said. There is a duty on the Government to reply to questions that this House asks them.
Those questions are over and above those asked now by those who were then involved in putting many of these proposals together, including David Davis and many others in the House of Commons who have been referred to. He said that he would not support the White Paper—and, by definition, any of the mechanisms of the FCA enabled by the Bill—because the underpinning operational foundation of it, a common rulebook of regulations, is worse than the situation that we have at the moment, within the European Union.
Will the Minister be clear about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay? It is not just a case of telling our European partners the position we seek for our future trade relationship; it is also about those 40 other countries and networks where we are engaged in discussion on rolling over existing trade agreements to a new post-Brexit scenario.
The Minister described the Bill, but he did not make a case for it. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, he did nothing to describe the changes made in the Commons to the Bill as introduced to this House. How will new Clause 54, which destroys the FCA, operate? It is telling that the Government clearly do not think that this afternoon’s debate is very important. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, was the only speaker in support of the Government’s position. The Minister is nodding. If he can take that as a ringing endorsement of the Government’s position, he needs to worry later this evening.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked, are we pursuing new Clause 54 in the negotiations? Is advice being published on how checks on the estimates on which the formula will be calculated, and are we in discussion with our European colleagues about how that will operate? What are the methodologies for the UK to operate under this system? Have we discussed with our European colleagues the methodology that we would expect them to apply for reciprocity?
When will the necessary changes be made for reciprocity? What is the legal basis from a European point of view? Clearly, if we are asking that of them, we need to understand the legal basis ourselves. As has been said, how can this possibly be squared with the situation in Ireland, where there will be a border where those checks will be necessary if we are asking that of the Irish Government?
How can we expect the European Union to place on other third countries the necessary requirements for them to define their goods when they export to the EU as we will expect them to do when they export to us? What arrangements will the EU be putting in place to ensure that there will be proper dispute resolution of this reciprocity? Those are just some questions that we would have hoped and expected to raise at a further stage of the Bill.
However, the uncertainty continues. At least the Government have now provided advice on the basis of there being no agreement. Their advice to businesses of 23 August on the new customs relationship ended with very clear advice: seek advice from your business advisers. If that is what our Government are saying to our businesses when the clock is clearly ticking, we are in considerable difficulty.
I asked a Question of the Minister for Health regarding medicines just before the Recess. Forty-five million packs of patient’s medicines are exported from the UK every month and 37 million are imported into the UK. Merck, GSK and AstraZeneca all forecast that if we leave the customs union, it could take five to 10 years for any technological solution—which would be under the FCA—to replace the system we have at the moment. They are now stockpiling, given the level of extra documentation. That is not project fear, nor is it a statement from the Treasury which the Department for International Trade can criticise; this is a fact from our business community.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made a very powerful case, I think in support of the Government’s position, that we should rid ourselves of the European Medicines Agency regulation, and that we can thank God that we are leaving it. I suspect that there will have to be amendments to get rid of Clause 6 of the Trade Bill, of which the House of Commons asked that we should continue to be a part, and I am glad that that is the case.
We are often asked by people to offer scrutiny in this House, but there were clear voices from many on the other side of the argument, when we amended and asked the Commons to think again on the withdrawal Bill, saying that we were abusing our parliamentary processes. The Minister at the Dispatch Box said that we were going beyond our constitutional powers. However, contriving to classify this Bill in such a way to avoid proper scrutiny undermines that argument considerably. We shall have to come back on many specific issues, which regrettably we are unable to discuss today, whether on the regulations on anti-dumping referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on the relationship with the FCA and our trading partners, or on the Treasury’s position and the advice it is giving about the state of the British economy if we leave without any agreement. We will need to come back to this, and from these Benches, we will do so consistently and strongly as a point of principle. That is why I endorse my noble friend’s comments: this House should express in the Division Lobby our position that we are not satisfied with how the Government are handling the Bill.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, summing up a debate of this quality and range is the stuff of nightmares for me at the Dispatch Box because every single point that I put together prior to the debate has been more than adequately covered by the speakers, to whom, of course, the Government need to respond. Therefore, I have one consolation: however challenging the position in which I find myself, the Minister, after this debate, will find himself in an extremely challenging position. A series of questions have been asked to which it is entirely right that the Government should address themselves.
This is all the product of the collapse, effectively, of the Chequers agreement. The discussion in the Commons on this Bill, leading to the Government’s collapse in the face of the European Research Group’s onslaught, put the Government in the impossible position to which so many noble Lords have referred. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, regretted the fact that this Bill has no Committee stage, so we are unable to bring a degree of detailed consideration subsequently, which we are used to doing. Given the fundamental problems with this Bill, I am not so sure that this general debate is not in itself sufficient for the Government to be obliged to think very hard and to think again. They need to deal with the obvious absurdity, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, referred: the trade remedies aspect of the Government’s proposals is in the next Bill, but this Bill has all the detail. We cannot discuss that detail because this is a supply Bill. The Government really do need to take these issues seriously and I think the debate next week on the Trade Bill will be a fundamental challenge to the Government’s position, which is woeful.
I, too, admire the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, in his support of the Government. He may not have anticipated being in such solitary isolation, but nevertheless, a look at the speakers’ list would show that not too many would be buttressing his argument. We are nevertheless grateful to him for presenting the argument to which the Government seem, at present, to have largely succumbed.
However, this means trouble for our negotiating position in Europe. In general terms, the questions raised on every aspect of the Bill present fundamental difficulties for the Minister in replying. In particular, we can sense—and have sensed for a year—that the problem of Northern Ireland will loom large for the Government as trade negotiations take place. My noble friend Lord Whitty, buttressed by my noble friend Lord Adonis, identified with great accuracy the implications of how critical that position is. I do not think the Government can finesse their way past that. I remember that, prior to Christmas, the Government were pleased that Monsieur Barnier and the negotiators on the other side announced that progress could be made because there had been some understanding of our position on Northern Ireland. It was never very convincing just what that understanding was. As soon as we get near legislation and look at the detail of what the Government’s policy on trade might be, we find that there is still an overwhelmingly difficult problem with Northern Ireland.
The Government cannot carry on with optimistic fudging. They have got to reach something definitive. They may not have announced, prior to the discussions on this Bill, that they would concede to the challenges put down by the European Research Group, but they have done. In consequence, there are crucial problems with our negotiating position, as identified by so many noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who spent a considerable amount of time on this point. None of us can pretend that there have been many positive responses to the position the Government have adopted from Monsieur Barnier and those who represent the 27 other nations. Time moves on. We have very few months in which to avoid the position which some may regard as the proper outcome of these negotiations but which the Government have never said they contemplated and which the British people certainly never expected: that the only outcome is a hard Brexit and a fall back on the World Trade Organization. Noble Lords in this debate have identified the potential difficulties for the nation if we fall into that position.
I will keep my contribution short because I want to give the Minister the maximum amount of time to respond. He will recognise that there have been really substantial questions from every quarter of the House about the Government’s policies, particularly with regard to trade. The Commons largely called them out on this. We regret that we are not able to deal with it in significant detail, but we can all take some sustenance from the fact that, although today’s debate may not have dealt with all the issues in detail, it has identified the critical facts that the Government face as they develop their negotiating position. The Minister has got a pretty tough case to answer.
Lord Bates
My Lords, this has been a good debate. I now have the challenge of trying to respond to, by my calculation, 33 specific questions in the time allotted; if I am to abide by the Companion I should not exceed 20 minutes for winding up.
Before I address the key themes raised, I will say that a lot of the debate centred on the constitutional nature of what we seek to achieve through the procedure by which we are considering the Bill. I want to set out the context. The proposition made was, effectively, that this piece of legislation was being railroaded through both Houses and on to the statute book without sufficient scrutiny. To that challenge, I point out that it was on 9 October last year that the customs Bill White Paper and the trade White Paper were published; that it was on 20 November last year that the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill was introduced to the House of Commons in a Ways and Means debate; that it was on 5 December last year that both the trade and the customs elements were the subject of take-note debates in your Lordships’ House; that it was on 8 January this year that the Second Reading of the Bill was debated in the other place; that, during debate on the EU withdrawal Act in your Lordships’ House, customs and trade implementation issues were readily and frequently the subject of amendments and of debate; that on 12 July the Government published their White Paper on the future economic partnership, which set out in detail the proposal for a facilitated customs arrangement; and that on 16 July the Bill completed its Commons Report stage and therefore now comes to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
The Minister is making the point that the Bill started so long ago that we have had sufficient time to consider it—but some fundamental changes were made a week before the House of Commons rose for its recess. There has been no other parliamentary time to scrutinise the amendments made by the ERG, which could fundamentally change the Government’s whole proposal for a facilitated customs arrangement. There has been zero opportunity to have that consideration, and there will now be zero opportunity for it in this House as well.
Lord Bates
The noble Lord says that, but I am not suggesting what he has just accused me of suggesting for one minute. I am placing this in context. There has been substantial scrutiny and time for debate on the issues. The Trade Bill will follow; it has its Second Reading on 11 September, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. We hope that an agreement with our European friends will take place this autumn, and there will then be a meaningful vote. Following that, there will be an agreement and implementation Bill. Following that, a piece of legislation on the future economic framework will have to come before your Lordships’ House. Placed in that context, this Bill represents the fact that at the moment our customs, trade and tariff policies are hardwired into the European Union, so there is a legislative necessity for us to have a standalone trade and customs arrangement, legislatively underpinned, so that we can prepare for any eventualities that the negotiations throw up. We have been clear throughout that it is in the best interests of this country and of the European Union that we conclude in an orderly way, with an agreement, and that we move to frictionless trade as far as possible.
The debate has focused essentially on the following issues; I will summarise them as a way of trying to work through and answer as many questions as I can in the time available.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Since the noble Lord is moving on from the point about timing, could he answer the question as to whether the powers in the Bill have any practical applicability in the context of an agreement with the European Union which provides for a 20-month transition period, during which we will not be able to exercise any of these powers because we will still be following the decisions of the customs union and the single market? I accept that, if there is no deal, these powers will have applicability. Am I correct in thinking that the only circumstance in which they will have applicability before 1 January 2021 is if there is no deal?
Lord Bates
That is correct. Obviously I defer to the noble Lord, who has immense experience in this area—I believe that he was one of the team of negotiators who negotiated our entry into the European Economic Community—and knows it substantially. In his question, he gave the reason why the Bill is necessary: because we are not guaranteed a deal. However, we are guaranteed that business will need to trade, because we are a trading nation. Therefore, we need to be prepared for every possible outcome or eventuality.
The headings under which this debate has taken place are: the economic impact of Brexit, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox; trade remedies, which the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Stevenson and Lord Davies, referred to; the Northern Ireland border and the Bill’s relation to ports more generally, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Adonis; the progress of the negotiations, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—and following this debate, my noble friend Lord Callanan will repeat a Statement to update the House on that; the impact on supply chains, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Altmann; and the impact on free trade, mentioned by my noble friend—I underscore the friend element—Lord Trenchard, although the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also placed his remarks in the context of the Trade Bill. I have tried to address the constitutional concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Browne. There were also points on rules of origin, which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised, as he did in the take-note debate last December. The noble Lords, Lord Purvis, Lord Whitty and Lord Hannay, referred to the application of duties and the methodology of the tariffs; the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised the important issue of VAT and the way it will continue; and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to WTO status. I put that on the record just to give those who read these concluding remarks some sort of structure in terms of how I will try to work my way through the debate.
First, on the amendments to Clause 31 and the charge that they have restricted the Government’s options, we have been clear that as we leave the EU, we will also leave the EU customs union. Therefore, the Government have no objection to an enhanced level of scrutiny related to the use of Clause 31. The Chequers agreement does not envisage a customs union with the EU as part of a future economic partnership. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with the White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked whether HMRC has the necessary resources. There was a full response from the chief executive of HMRC, Jon Thompson, to Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, which did a very detailed report on this subject earlier in the year. He responded as to where they were, including in terms of independent reports by the National Audit Office on the infrastructure project assessments that had taken place.
We have committed an extra £260 million to ensure the UK’s new tax and customs arrangements with the EU, including compliance and customer services staff to resolve the design of the new IT requirement. Also on that note, it was pointed out—a number of noble Lords referenced the fact—that there will potentially be a requirement for the number of customs declarations generated electronically to rise to some 250 million. There are currently 55 million. The capacity of the system that has been designed is for up to 300 million.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about the business impacts of the facilitated customs arrangement. There will be no new routine checks or controls for UK businesses trading with the EU under the FCA model. There will be a range of facilitations to help UK businesses which export to the rest of the world. For UK businesses importing from the rest of the world, they will benefit from the UK’s own tariffs. We estimate that up to 96% of UK goods trade will pay the right or no tariff on the UK border. I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and I will come to it later. The remaining 4% of UK goods trade is most likely to pay the UK’s tariff through the repayment mechanism, which we will make as simple as possible by introducing a range of facilitations.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about the Trade Remedies Authority, on which there are provisions in the Bill, but which gets its structure and overarching powers from the Trade Bill to come. The Trade Bill establishes the TRA as a non-departmental public body. It will have an independent chairman. There will be recruitment processes for people to form a shadow Trade Remedies Authority ahead of its being ready for our exit from the European Union. The upcoming Trade Bill provides an opportunity to explore those issues further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about the impact on supply. The Bill establishes a stand-alone customs regime in relation to taxation. For this reason, it was introduced in the other place on a ways and means resolution. Bills introduced through such resolutions are Bills of aids and supply which, in accordance with established practice, are not amended by this House. There is nothing in this Bill that could not have been in a Finance Bill.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Kerr, referred to Clause 54, saying that, as amended, it prevents the Government implementing the facilitated customs arrangement. The Government have been clear in their White Paper that, under the FCA, the UK would seek to agree a mechanism for the remittance of relevant tariff revenue. The UK has proposed a tariff revenue formula taking account of goods destined for the UK entering via the EU and goods destined for the EU entering via the UK. Clause 54 is therefore consistent with the White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, claimed that this contradicts the UK’s commitment to the backstop, and therefore a hard border would be inevitable. This point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who invited me to give a one-word response. I am still working on that, but, if I may, I will give him the lengthy answer first. Clause 55 seeks to avoid a fiscal customs border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain by preventing Northern Ireland forming part of a customs territory separate from GB. That was the backstop arrangement negotiated in December. Since then, both the European Commission and the UK have made their positions clear. The concept of a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is simply not acceptable to the Government.
This clause is therefore a straightforward statement of government policy. The Government have always been clear that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and have committed to protect the constitutional integrity of the UK in the joint report in December.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, among others, asked what that means for the Northern Ireland protocol. Our proposal delivers all our commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland. It means that goods and agri-food would flow freely across the border, with no need for any physical border, infrastructure or related checks or controls, so the backstop would not need to be used. We have said clearly that we are committed to agreeing a legally operative backstop in the withdrawal agreement, and we will continue to negotiate on this as we intensify negotiations over the coming weeks.
There has been some criticism in terms of how the White Paper has been received, but there have been a number of positive remarks. Chancellor Merkel has said that we have made progress and that it is a good thing that we have proposals on the table. The Taoiseach said:
“The Chequers statement is welcome. I believe it can input into the talks on the future relationship”.
Kristian Jensen, the Danish Finance Minister, said just a couple of weeks ago that Chequers is a,
“realistic proposal for good negotiations”.
He said that we need to go into a lot of detail but that it is a very “positive step forward”.
The Government understand that the impact and cash-flow implications of the different rates of VAT, whether it is import VAT or acquisition VAT, are a very important concern for VAT-registered businesses. It was announced in the Autumn Budget that the Government will look at options to mitigate any cash-flow impacts for businesses. The White Paper on the future economic partnership, published on 17 July, makes it clear that the Government’s aim is to,
“ensure that new declarations and border checks between the UK and the EU do not need to be introduced for VAT and Excise purposes”.
They therefore propose,
“the application of common cross-border processes and procedures”.
I was asked what happens in the event of a no-deal scenario. The Government are confident that the UK can agree a deep and special partnership with the EU. However, a responsible Government should prepare for all potential outcomes, including the unlikely scenario in which no mutually satisfactory agreement can be reached. The VAT for Businesses if there’s No Brexit Deal technical notice confirms that, if the UK leaves the EU without an agreement, the Government will,
“introduce postponed accounting for import VAT on goods brought into the UK”.
I believe that that will be welcomed by businesses and it was as a result of listening to business that we brought that proposal forward. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked about delivery timescales. The UK and the EU will work together on the phased introduction of a new facilitated customs arrangement. The precise timeline will be agreed through negotiations with the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, kindly referred to my north-east antecedents and interest in that wonderful part of the country, which I share with my noble friend Lord Callanan. He talked about the impact on the economy of the north-east of England. We are currently enjoying the fact that unemployment in the north-east is at record low levels—down to 4.3%. That is the lowest level for 40 years and it compares to 8.3% in the eurozone. Therefore, I think that the north-east has the ingenuity, talent, ability and propensity for hard work to be able to look after itself whatever the outcome, and that goes for the rest of the UK.
I turn to the important matter of Scotch whisky. The Scotch whisky industry is a truly great British success story, and the EU accounted for around a third of the valuable Scotch whisky exports in 2016. The Bill provides the ability to adopt the EMCS after our withdrawal from the EU in order to manage suspended UK internal excise duties. The Government want to minimise burdens on firms while still having the tools to tackle the illicit trade which undermines all legitimate producers and retailers.
I think that I have covered the point about unreasonable powers in the Bill, but I particularly want to cover the issue of the no-deal version that the Government presented last week as being “incompatible” with the Good Friday agreement, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. That is a very serious charge, and we obviously recognise that successive Governments have placed that at the heart of their policies. The UK Government remain steadfast in their commitment to the Good Friday agreement, in both letter and spirit, alongside maintaining the common travel area and associated rights and avoiding a customs border in the Irish Sea. This will meet all the commitments which have been made to the people of Northern Ireland.
There is still a lot of negotiating to be done, but there are some things that we cannot compromise on because they are at the heart of what people voted for—for example, an end to the vast annual contributions to the EU, an end to the jurisdiction of the ECJ and an end to free movement. Inevitably, there are some who are unhappy with our proposals—people who want to reverse the referendum decision—and some who, rather than compromise, would prefer the most distant relationship possible with the EU. However, the country did not vote for either of those things. It is time that we came together and agreed a pragmatic Brexit that most people can support and get on with, and which is good for us, good for business and good for our European friends. I believe that this Bill represents an important part of the preparations for that aspiration. I commend it to the House.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, we put down our amendment to create a framework for the debate. We wanted to assure ourselves that it would not be a simple, formal, dry debate on the supply Motion. We have been successful in that, in the sense that this afternoon’s debate has been excellent and thoughtful and has created many, many questions. I am afraid that in my judgment, and I suspect in that of many others in the House, the Government have failed to produce credible answers that are internally consistent and capable of execution. In particular, they have failed to answer the question: have the ERG amendments to the Bill effectively destroyed the Chequers solution?
The Labour Front Bench will not be able to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, because it is not presently the policy of the Labour Party to support a second referendum. With that, and in accordance with my introduction, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
At end insert “but expresses profound concern that the proposals in the bill are based on the Government’s flawed commitment to leave the single market and Customs Union, that the Government have failed to produce a comprehensive economic assessment of the consequences for the United Kingdom’s economy of being outside the Customs Union, that they have sought to limit the role of Parliament, and in particular the role of this House, in the revision and scrutinising of the bill, and that they have failed to provide an opportunity for the people of the United Kingdom to have a vote, prior to the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, on the terms of the new relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union”.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, in the light of the need for scrutiny, so illustrated by this debate, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Royal Assent
Thursday 13th September 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 27 April 2018 - (27 Apr 2018)