Finance (No. 3) Bill

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I can now inform the House that I have completed certification of the Bill, as required by the Standing Order. I have confirmed the view expressed in the Speaker’s provisional certificate issued on 7 January. Copies of my final certificate will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.

Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website, and have been made available to Members in the Chamber. Does a Minister intend to move the consent motion?

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Craig Whittaker)]

indicated assent.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (Standing Order No. 83M).

[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

Trade Bill (Third sitting)

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Barry Gardiner]

Q So to put that same final question, do you have confidence yet in the framework that the Government have set out?

Gary Stephenson: I am an optimist, so I would like to think that I have confidence that we would be engaged in consultation, yes.

Elspeth Macdonald: From Food Standards Scotland’s perspective, the part of the Bill that engages most with us relates to implementation of trade agreements going forward. If current trade agreements between the EU and third countries are carried over in their current form, that may not change matters significantly. If those trade agreements down the road start to change, or there is a desire or a wish to start to change them, the transparency on how that would happen is not yet evident. Overriding all of that, of course, in the devolved context, is the issue about the constraints in competence that the Bill would bring on Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament, and therefore on ourselves, to be able to provide assurances to consumers in Scotland about standards, and assurance in relation to international trade.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Q I want to ask each of you whether you think that the Bill is sufficient to do what it needs to do, bearing in mind that it is not about future trade deals, but is about facilitating the carry-over of deals that are already in place?

Gary Stephenson: It is difficult to tell with the Bill as it stands, because the devil is in the detail. There are 40-plus EU free trade agreements. Some are very small—economically they are not too important—but there are some very big free trade agreements within those. Clearly, we cannot do them all at once, and the key bit will be whether there is some sort of Government prioritisation of those agreements, perhaps from the standpoint of size of markets. There are some very big ones in there: Japan, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, Ukraine, Turkey and Egypt are very large markets that are certainly important for UK-Scottish producers.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q If I may, though, the question was about this particular Bill and whether you think it will facilitate carry-over of those trade agreements set out in it.

Gary Stephenson: There is uncertainty, because of the transitional phase within those discussions. If we are in a transitional phase, we are out of the EU but we are still controlled by the customs requirements. It very much depends. If there is good will on both sides, then things should progress acceptably. If any of these markets want to change the agreement with the UK, that puts us in a difficult position, because we have certainly got a fairly weak position during the transition period, where we are bound not to agree any future agreement but are still tied to the European requirements, though we are outside the EU. I am not sure how that will be resolved, and it is not detailed in the legislation.

Sarah Dickson: We are probably in a slightly different position, in that we think this Bill has the basics that you would need to carry over existing agreements. Also, because of the time pressure, we could understand that with existing agreements there may not be time for the sort of consultation and other discussion that you would want with new agreements, or if these agreements were to be changed. For an existing agreement, where the terms are to all intents and purposes similar, we can see that this Bill has the basics to do that.

For new agreements, or agreements that were changing, as Gary has mentioned, you would need a much more detailed consultation process, with scrutiny, and that is probably the bit of the legislation that it feels like the Trade Bill is missing. What happens with future deals or if deals change? How would that process work?

[Craig Whittaker]

Q Do you have a different view?

Elspeth Macdonald: No. As I understand it, this Bill provides for the carry-over of those existing trade deals between the EU and other countries. I think there is also—

[The Chair]

Could you speak up, please?

Elspeth Macdonald: Yes. This Bill provides for carry-over from existing trade agreements between the EU and third countries. I think that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has some influence on this process, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

Q Is there an issue that if we lose the ability to monitor that, we could be looking at substandard products?

Jonathan Hindle: That would be a big concern for the industry. It already is under the current regime, and we are looking for improvements.

David Scott: To Gordon’s point specifically, there is a complexity here that we do not really understand. As you said, my company knew nothing about the Trade Bill or these sorts of things until we were asked to look into this. We focus on our bits. I think that Gordon is absolutely right: if we put in a trade Bill, there will be unforeseen consequences for certain sectors that you cannot foresee at this point in time.

Part of that is the safety element. Regulated drugs are there for a reason. If we start to loosen those regulations to make trade easier, then we open ourselves up to all sorts of problems, in terms of the fitness for purpose of the products that are brought into this country for use by patients.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q I have two questions, if I may. First, I just want to ask David a question. You said earlier that it would be a disaster if the pharmaceutical industry did not operate under the same regulatory framework as Europe—that would be a disaster for pharmaceuticals in this country. Correct me if I heard wrongly. However, is it not true that no matter what country you want to deal with, as an industry you have to comply with the regulation of whatever country you are dealing with anyway? So why on earth would you, as an industry, put yourself at risk anyway and not comply with EU regulations, whether we were in or out of the EU?

David Scott: We would always want to comply with the highest standards of good manufacturing practices—GMP—for the pharmaceutical industry. What we do not want is to see any easing-up of the requirements of that to make trade easier with other parties. That is what I was trying to say. We need to be part of a harmonised system that works on a global basis, because if we have our own system then it becomes much more—not difficult to trade with us or to get things regulated, but we would set up an extra set of barriers. Currently, 60% of all medicines that are used in Europe are released from the UK.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q So there is absolutely no reason why you as an industry would not conform to that regulation anyway, and consequently this is not really a trade issue.

David Scott: No, absolutely—it is not a trade issue. We would continue to work to the highest standards, but I would be concerned that things being imported into the UK might not meet the same standards as we would look to use ourselves.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q Which is a different thing all together. Gordon, may I just ask you a question? I fully understand your nationalistic views on why we should or should not be in the EU; like everybody, we are all entitled to our view and of course voted whichever way we felt at the time. For the purposes of today, though, that is not what we are here to talk about; what we are here to talk about, of course, is the Bill that we are considering. The Bill is a facilitating Bill for the current trade agreements that have already gone through a process of transparency through the EU system. My question to you is this: for the purposes of that and that alone, would it be fair to say that this Bill does exactly what is on the tin?

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: The Bill itself does not supply sufficient detail to be safe to pass, in my view. The evidence that I am offering is not based on any nationalistic principles; in fact, I think Brexit is also a nationalistic principle, but that is not what we are here to talk about, as you say.

There is one particular thing about standards, in that it is not really defined which ethics and standards will constrain trade Bills. You talked about pharmacy. I worked for Scottish Enterprise for many years and led a mission out to the States to look at poultry processing over there, and chlorine-washed chicken is one of the issues. Everyone was focusing on the fact that there was going to be chlorine-washed chicken as though that is a bad thing. Actually, it is not that bad a thing; it is just that their process is completely different.

If you wash chicken at the end of the process with chlorine, then you do not actually have to have all the high standards in every single process right through, until you get to the point that you have finished. You have then got a product that is a lot less expensive to create. If that is allowed to be imported into the United Kingdom, it will destroy poultry jobs, and therefore we have to think about this question: “Does this Bill actually have sufficient protections to mean that the unforeseen consequences will stop the loss of jobs in the UK as a result of the free hand that has been given?” I do not think it will.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q Just for clarity, I do not understand what you mean by “free hand”. The Bills that we are talking about transferring over have already gone through all the European processes for identifying Bills. This is purely a Bill to enable the Government, when we leave the EU, to put into law what is already in law.

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Except the wording of one of the points—I am sorry, but I do not have it in front of me—is that the Minister and the devolved Administrations will have the ability to act, where appropriate. That gives a huge free hand without the right level of scrutiny and professional input. That in itself is the danger of the Bill. That is very specific to this Bill, and the point is about what it allows and how it can be read.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q If I may, Chair, I have one final question: do you understand how the statutory instrument process works?

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: I understand that this is largely about rewriting—or, if you like, cutting and pasting—from European rules into British law, but elements of the Bill are ill-defined and could, like the Henry VIII powers, direct too much power—

[Craig Whittaker]

Q So let me ask the question again: do you understand what these so-called Henry VIII powers are and how they work?

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Inasmuch as I have read about them and have written newspaper articles about them, but I am not a lawyer, if that is what you are getting at. Am I able to give you a complete legal run-down of them? No, but I do not think you would have the time if I were able to.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q I understand that, but what I am trying to establish, Gordon, is this. You mentioned the Henry VIII powers—the SI process—and you are saying that it is not transparent enough. However, I am asking whether you understand that process so that you can make a judgment call about whether it is or is not transparent enough.

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Yes, I do.

Trade Bill (Second sitting)

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

Q George Peretz, you were talking before about the Trade Remedies Authority. Can I bring you back to that? I believe that the Government are conducting a review into which trade offensive measures can be rolled over or passed forward—having heard that last piece of evidence, I am not sure what description to use. Can you describe the challenges and the consequences if some of those are not used by us when we are outside the EU?

George Peretz: Not all WTO law is clear, but what is pretty clear is that we could not simply automatically carry over existing trade remedies imposed by the EU and say, “These remedies will apply to the UK now that it is a separate WTO jurisdiction”—if I can use that term loosely. We cannot do that for one very simply reason: it is a condition of all trade remedies that there is a domestic injury. A domestic injury is defined, and the UK is obviously not the same as the EU. It is potentially an issue that applies the other way around, incidentally, but that it a problem for the EU rather than for us.

As far as I understand it, the Department for International Trade is feeling its way to dealing with this problem. As a first step, it is asking industries that benefit from an existing trade remedy to set out why they think it should continue and to explain what the domestic injury is. There is probably also a need for the UK to discuss with the European Commission what the position is. After all, in its investigation of all these remedies, the Commission will have built up a case file that will include quite a lot of information about what the injury is, some of which will be pinned down geographically. It will be able to say that that is evidence of an injury in the UK. Perhaps that could be used to justify carrying on the remedy after we have left the EU, but it would have to be the judgment of the new Trade Remedies Authority whether that evidence was good enough to withstand domestic scrutiny and appeals and, ultimately, a possible WTO challenge. There is a very difficult set of issues there, which will be a challenge for DIT and the TRA.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Q I want to go back to the scrutiny of the Bill. My understanding of what some people call the Henry VIII powers, for an SI or a DL, is that there is provision in both of those processes, whether they are negative or affirmative, to raise an objection for debate on the Floor of the House of Commons. My question is where is that process flawed?

George Peretz: I do not claim to be a great expert in parliamentary procedure, and I am not sure that I can add very much to what Brigid Fowler said about that—she is an expert on parliamentary procedure.

Plainly, there is an opportunity to challenge a statutory instrument that uses the negative resolution procedure, but clearly it is less likely to be challenged—just look at the statistics—than a piece of primary legislation, because one fundamental point about any statutory instrument is that the vote is simply an all-or-nothing vote on the instrument. There is no ability to have the primary legislation to say, “We agree with most of this clause but we don’t like clause 5, therefore we would like to amend that.” It is take-it-or-leave-it. The problem with a lot of this is that you will be told that the clock is running and you need to decide very quickly what to do.

Professor Winters: There is very little time, so be realistic about what the cost of a challenge would be and the pressures that that would generate.

Michael Clancy: It is the balance between speed and scrutiny—that is the whole point. To get that right is quite difficult with a negative or indeed an affirmative resolution procedure. Although theoretically each of these could be debated, I think it would be very difficult to get each of these debated. There simply is not enough time to do that—we are told that there are between 800 and 1,000 orders in relation to the EUWB. I do not know how many of them might be here—63 existing trade treaties, maybe more, and other things as well. That is the difficulty.

What are the defects? The defects are that we have an alternative procedure of super-affirmative if we need extra time to look at something—that is where the sift comes in. If the sift identifies a particular order as being important, it might then get better scrutiny, and better scrutiny might mean the affirmative resolution procedure on a super-affirmative basis. We do not know that the sift applies to these orders because the sift is not mentioned in this Bill. Will it be? Are you going to propose amendments? Is the Government going to take that forward to this Bill? That is another story for another day perhaps.

Then there is the issue—I think it is in one of the Hansard Society papers—of the difficulty, in fact the incapability, of amending these orders. They have to be taken back by the Minister and re-presented. That induces time and delay, and we are running out time and inducing delay.

[Craig Whittaker]

Q I want to come back on that. What you all say is that there are elements of truth in everything, but the reality is, yes, we have a huge amount to get through, and there is a place for the SI process to get some of these through quickly. My point to you is that, although there is a huge amount made of these so-called Henry VIII powers, this Parliament does actually have overall scrutiny control of these trade Bills if we choose to take it.

Michael Clancy: That is true, but the ultimate test is overturning the order. We saw that the last time an order was overturned in the other place—it resulted in the Strathclyde review because it was such an outrage, so we have to be careful about that, because it may have more political impact than we would imagine.

[The Chair]

We are having trouble with time and scrutiny as well. We have only two minutes left for Matt Western.