European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People were told stories about unicorns and mermaids. They were told that there would be amazing economic largesse in the event of Brexit, and they have been told that for a huge number of years, and not just in relation to the Brexit vote. People have been told by politicians that those who choose to come to live and work in this country make us poorer, which is an absolute lie. Those people contribute to our GDP, they contribute to reducing our public sector net debt and they contribute to our economy, and that is without going into the cultural and social benefits.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is interesting to watch the faces of Conservative Members as my hon. Friend lays out, in stark detail, the impact on the economy. I have met Hologic, a life sciences company in my Livingston constituency that does diagnostic testing, a number of times since the Brexit vote, and it has raised significant alarms. The company tests the safety of medicines for consumers not just in the UK but in the EU, and it has highlighted to me the catastrophic effect of the UK Government’s plans. Does she agree that we are heading towards catastrophe if this Government continue going this way and their motion is passed?

[Kirsty Blackman]

My hon. Friend must have read my mind, because I was just about to move on to medicines. The Nuffield Trust has said:

“The longer term arrangements envisioned in the agreement and political declaration generally entail leaving the single market. Unless negotiating positions fundamentally change, this will produce extra costs for medicines and other supplies.”

Every single month 37 million packs of medicine travel from the EU to the UK, and 45 million packs of medicine travel from the UK to the EU. If we are outside the single market and the customs union, that medicine will take longer to travel across the border in both directions. That medicine will require extra testing in both jurisdictions. If we do not test it, when we are outside the single market and do not have a common rulebook, we would be putting individuals at risk by allowing them to use medicine that has not been tested and does not fit with our regime. A no-deal scenario would be disastrous and cannot be allowed to happen.

I wish briefly to mention a couple of things that will not be ready in the event of either a deal or no deal. I have mentioned the online system for those exporting from the EU to the UK via postal packages. It is important that the Treasury gets itself into gear and sorts this out. It promised to do so in a VAT notice that was put in place in August, but it needs to establish this online system so that individuals or companies exporting from the EU to the UK by post can do so. It was particularly telling that the International Trade Secretary talked about e-commerce, given that he proposes to take us out of the digital single market—that was unfortunate.

Let me move on to other things that are not ready. The postponement scheme for VAT does not appear to be ready, or if it is ready, companies do not how to use it. Again, the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs need to get that scheme set up so that VAT that is changing from acquisition VAT to import VAT can be postponed, meaning that companies will not have to pay that money up front, because otherwise the situation will spell financial disaster for a huge number of companies.

Lastly, the customs declaration system is also not ready. It has not been widely rolled out—it has not been rolled out to everybody yet—but companies will have to use it. Some 145,000 companies have never exported outwith the EU and they will be reaching this system for the first time. It is important that they use it, and that everybody is able to use it before April so that any glitches in the system will be gone. It will not be a situation involving queues of lorries—we will not even be able to load the stuff on to lorries if this system does not work, so it needs to be fixed in advance.

I wish to talk a little more about the human cost. Last week, the British Retail Consortium announced more figures on the cost of food after Brexit. It has said that a no-deal scenario would see households in Scotland paying £55.30 more each week for food and that the least well-off 10% of households across the UK would be paying £38.50 more each week. That would represent a 6.4% increase in the amount of their income that they would have to spend on food. Given the Government’s squeeze on families at the bottom of the pile, it is incredibly important that the Government do what they can to ensure that no deal is taken off the table. I do not know why we are even still discussing this. Why is no deal still on the table? Why does the Prime Minister not just say that if her deal gets voted down tomorrow, which it will, she will not have no deal happen to us and that 6.4% increase for people will not take place.

I have not yet touched on migration. The 2017 Red Book said that reducing net migration by 20,000 would increase public sector net debt by 0.2% by 2022—that is a fact. Presumably the Government stand by the fact that it is a fact, because it was in their Red Book. People who choose to live and work in this country—on these islands—are net contributors to our economy. As a group, they are net contributors to our economy. They make a contribution, so we will be poorer—economically and fiscally—if net migration is reduced by any significant number. The hospitality sector needs 100,000 new EU entrants per annum—some people go away, so that is not a net figure. If we are to be a global Britain and a country that wants people to come to enjoy it as tourists, we need people to work in that sector. Given our ageing population in Scotland, we need people to come to live and work in our country even more. That is why the UK Government must change their plan on the £30,000 cap and the cap on numbers. If they are unwilling to do that, they must devolve immigration to Scotland. If they do not devolve immigration to Scotland, they make the case for Scottish independence ever stronger.

There are EU workers in our care, manufacturing and agri-food sectors, and those sectors rely on them. Today, NFU Scotland said:

“We cannot feed our nation without this labour.”

That is incredibly serious. If we do not have enough people coming to work in our agri-food sector, we will lose the ability to be the world-leading country that we are. We will lose the ability to feed even people who live here, let alone to export and to bring in the tax revenue that we get from exporting.

Free movement of people is a good thing—a brilliant thing. People my age and younger have benefited from it. We have been able to live and work in EU countries. People from those countries have been able to come to live and work next door to us, and we have benefited from that. It is devastating to think that this Government propose that my children should not benefit from the same rights of freedom of movement as we have had. I do not believe that any Member should reasonably be celebrating the end of freedom of movement, as its end costs us our rights and money in the Government’s coffers. As the Archbishop of Canterbury said, proceeding with Brexit caused a moral issue, and the biggest place where that moral issue stands is that politicians—not all, but some—have done what they can to demonise immigration and people who are born in other countries. We would not be in the place we are today if that had not happened.

This situation is an absolute shambles. I was pleased to see that the Financial Secretary was in the Chamber earlier. I hope he managed to find some food, given the note he had saying “No food” and “No channel tunnel” when he left the earlier Cabinet meeting. I hope that those things are slight exaggerations, but given the increase in the cost of food in the event of no deal, no food would be a reality for many families. We cannot operate like this. As the CBI said, businesses are watching in horror. The Prime Minister needs to remove the threat of no deal. The Government are limping on and the whole world is watching in horror. There is no good being done in this place just now. No other things are being done here—we are entirely focused on Brexit. We are not able to do the things that a global Britain should be doing. We are unable to have any kind of positive impact on the world because we are so unbelievably inward looking, fighting in this place.

The word “thrawn” is used in the north-east of Scotland—it sounds slightly different depending on where you are in the north-east. Someone who is thrawn is determined to proceed with something, in the face of all opposition and all sanity, and despite all evidence to the contrary and every expert telling them that they are wrong, because they have said they are going to do it. Someone who is thrawn is trying to go through with it because they cannot bear going back on something they have said. I have said a number of times that the Prime Minister needs to remove the threat of no deal. When she comes to speak to us tomorrow, she needs to say that in the event that her deal is voted down, she will go to the EU to ask for an extension of article 50 in order for a people’s vote to be held, so that we can remain in the EU and we will not have this economic, social and cultural catastrophe put upon us.

Draft Trade Barriers (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2018 General Committees

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Barriers (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

This statutory instrument revokes the European Union’s trade barriers regulation, which sets out a process by which businesses, trade associations and member states can report trade barriers to the European Commission. If a request passes a particular threshold, the regulation obliges the Commission to make a report. It can then take appropriate action, such as raising it in bilateral discussion or at the World Trade Organisation, but it is not obliged to do so. It should be noted that this applies only to unlawful barriers outside the EU.

After we leave the EU, tackling trade barriers will become the UK’s own responsibility, and it is important that we get this right. Trade barriers cost our economy billions of pounds every year, so it is crucial that businesses can continue to report them after Brexit, but that only makes it more crucial that the system for reporting them works as effectively as possible. The current EU system has a number of issues: it is complex and time-consuming and, in practice, has already been superseded. Those issues cannot be resolved without making policy changes to the regulations, which would take them outside the scope of our powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The only course available to us in this circumstance is to revoke the regulation.

The Government have decided not to replicate the EU’s trade barriers regulation, but to use an alternative, non-statutory system instead. Why is that? First, the process in the regulation is drawn-out and complex. There are five steps: a complaint is submitted; the Commission has 45 days to decide whether to investigate; the Commission announces the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union; the Commission investigates; and a report is submitted to the trade barriers committee. Unsurprisingly, that process takes a long time, during which businesses could be losing exports, thanks to unfair rules. In addition, businesses are required to submit lengthy reports involving complex and often expensive economic and legal analysis. That is a barrier for any business, but particularly for small businesses. I will give an example. In the EU’s own evaluation of the regulation, one organisation said that it had wanted to bring a case but decided not to do so simply because of the amount of information that the Commission had requested—and that was only at the pre-initiation phase.

Secondly, the current process is superfluous. All the regulation does is commit the Commission to writing a report; there is no requirement for the Commission actually to take any action. Unsurprisingly, businesses are already voting with their feet. About 70 new barriers were reported to the EU last year. In only one case did the business involved choose to use the statutory process; the rest of the complaints were submitted informally. There is no evidence that the informal complaints were any less likely to be resolved than those submitted through the regulation. Therefore, in practice, the regulation has been almost entirely superseded. In fact, the process has been used only 28 times in the 25 years for which it has existed, and the majority of those cases were in the first three years. The number declined rapidly thereafter, which speaks volumes about the experience of the process for business. Only one case has been brought in the past 10 years.

Our new, non-statutory process will be an improvement. It will be accessible and user-friendly, with a simple online form at gov.uk for businesses to fill in. The process is already well under way and will be ready for 29 March. Because the process is non-statutory, it will also be flexible. Businesses will be able to tell the Government about the full range of barriers that they face, whether they breach the letter or the spirit of an international agreement. The Government will use the full range of tools available to tackle those barriers—tools ranging from economic diplomacy, to regulatory dialogues, to WTO dispute settlement and committees.

This will be a two-way process: as well as being easier for businesses to use, the new approach has been designed to let the Government better understand the barriers faced by businesses, so that we can target our resources more effectively. Much of this happens already. The Department for International Trade and its posts, our network overseas, are already extensively involved in that sort of activity. The new system is designed to improve on the existing network and formalise it.

We will of course provide reports to businesses and to Parliament, within the bounds of confidentiality. The Government will in due course be able to share information with businesses on where barriers exist or have been removed, to help inform business decisions.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The position of the Scottish National party is clear—we want to stay in the EU—but, having said that, we recognise that if we are to leave, having regulation is important. Will the Minister speak a little about how the devolved nations and the businesses there will be represented and resourced appropriately so that the interests of all parts of the UK will be properly represented?

[George Hollingbery]

Clearly, under the auspices of the draft regulations, we are looking at trade barriers. The Scottish Government have their own trade policy and trade exporting teams, and I have no doubt that they have a network overseas. Indeed, that network works closely with the UK network. There will therefore be avenues into this process for anyone from any devolved nation who wants to make a representation on any issue about a trade barrier. I hope that satisfies the hon. Lady.

Furthermore, we are expanding the market access team at the Department for International Trade to support that work. Our new Her Majesty’s trade commissioners overseas will spearhead and champion action on market access across our nine overseas regions. We are upgrading our capability to deal with market access barriers, including our IT infrastructure, better to enable collaboration and work not only within DIT and across posts but across all Departments, for which many trade barriers will be relevant.

As the UK delivers an independent trade policy for the first time in 40 years, the Department for International Trade is here to ensure that our businesses have as many exporting opportunities as possible. Part of that is to resolve trade barriers as effectively as possible. I am confident that the Government’s approach is the right one.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.

What is the objective of the trade barrier system that we should have? Surely it must be to ensure that we have a robust system in place to support our businesses and workers as necessary and as they might expect. Given the new world order in which might is right, where protections and tariffs are rife and we verge on the prospect of very dangerous trade wars, it must be appropriate for UK businesses to expect the absolute best from their Government. What, therefore, have we been presented with?

At present, we are part of the European Commission trade barriers scheme, which operates as a statutory system. Businesses, trade associations and states may complain to the European Commission if they find evidence of a trade barrier in a non-EU state, as is currently the case with United States tariffs. After leaving the European Union, we will not be part of the TBR scheme—that much has been made clear by the Minister—and it will be replaced by a non-statutory system.

I am surprised that the Government did not automatically debate the issue in a Delegated Legislation Committee. Instead, it took the sifting committee to challenge the Government’s decision, and I am glad that it did so. When the Minister said that the system is drawn-out and complex, he rather let the cat out of the bag about how important it is for us to get it right and for Members of Parliament to be able to debate and scrutinise what is happening.

The sifting committee said that the House might wish to explore further with the Minister the Department’s plan for the new non-statutory reporting mechanism. Opposition Members certainly want to do so. As the explanatory memorandum notes, it is correct to say that other avenues are used for complaints to the Commission about trade barriers, but more trade barriers are being created in the new world order. In 2017, 70 new barriers affected EU businesses, and that number appears to be growing. It is true that of those 70 new barriers, only one was reported to the Commission, and the Government think that that proves that there is no need for a statutory system. The Government plan to replace the current system, but what is it about the new scheme that gives the Minister confidence that it will deliver what business needs?

If we examine the examples, we start to see a bit of a pattern. The Confederation of European Paper Industries lodged a complaint that measures imposed by Turkey on the imports of certain varieties of paper were inconsistent with both the WTO and the EU-Turkey customs arrangement rules. Turkey immediately withdrew the unfair measures because the possibility of action through the statutory system was enough. How does the Minister know that his new system will be as effective as the current one, without the back-up of either the Commission itself and the system it operates or a similar UK version? Previously, the threat of the procedure being used has been sufficient, as the paper industry example demonstrates. Did the Government consider that the reason the procedure is so rarely used is precisely that the threat alone is sufficient? Did the Minister consider that soft power is, in fact, extremely effective? Are the Government missing the point that the current system works very well indeed?

I also understand that a number of industry groups involving both UK businesses and those from the rest of the EU, including in ceramics, are at different levels of raising complaints through the existing trade barriers mechanism, so I put it to the Minister that the existing system is used more than might appear at first glance and, perhaps, more than he indicated in his opening remarks. Perhaps the Minister could advise those currently engaged in actions using the existing system as to whether they should continue their complaints using that system or switch to the UK’s new procedure.

The explanatory memorandum claims that there will be no impact on UK businesses. That seems unlikely, given that some may be involved in existing complaints and that others, including through relationships with other EU businesses, are likely to be in the future. I suggest that the Minister should confirm that the change in procedure will have an impact on UK businesses.

The Department has said that feedback on the effectiveness of the trade barriers regulatory system has been mixed? What does “mixed” mean? What was said in the informal consultation, and should there not be a more detailed consultation on the system that will be adopted? If the Minister wants to intervene to explain the rather quizzical look on his face, I will be delighted to give way. He is choosing not to. What is his plan is for the new system? Will it involve the Trade Remedies Authority? How might that work? If the Trade Remedies Authority is to be involved, does that mean that the Trade Bill is to reappear and conclude its remaining stages? It seems to have disappeared mysteriously into the ether.

The hon. Member for Livingston made the point about the nations and regions. We have debated that at length, and the lack of engagement with and involvement of the nations and regions was one of a number of our concerns about the Trade Remedies Authority. The hon. Lady made a good point about that and it applies in this case, too.

[Hannah Bardell]

I know there is support among Opposition Members for having officers for trade remedies, as we discussed in relation to the Trade Bill. Perhaps we could consider that alongside the issues under discussion. I hope we can work together to pursue that.

[Bill Esterson]

I certainly agree that the need for regional engagement and for the nations of the UK to be involved in addressing trade barriers is incredibly important—as it is for large and small individual businesses across the country.

What will the procedure be during the proposed transition period set out in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, in the unlikely event of the Prime Minister’s deal surviving? What will happen if, as seems inevitable, the deal is defeated? If, God forbid, there is no deal, what will happen then?

Paragraph 2.3 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“In the EU, the vast majority of trade barriers are raised via the Market Access Advisory Committee”.

Does the Minister propose to replace that committee, which is a non-statutory part of the current arrangements?

To move on to the Minister’s points about the digital service, there are great concerns among smaller firms, and the organisations that represent them, about the Government’s moving to the use of digital systems in a number of places in government. How will the use of the digital route ensure that smaller firms are not disadvantaged? That is of great concern to many small businesses. Should not the arrangement have been sorted out before the revocation of the existing legislation? I note that the Minister said it would be in place by the end of March. Will he confirm whether that digital system has been tested, whether there is awareness of it, particularly among smaller firms, and how he envisages greater access to and use of it by the smaller firms that might be interested in using it at some time in the future, if not today? That is a wider issue, but it is directly relevant.

Paragraph 10.5 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“Stakeholders from across sectors advocated a forum akin to the EU’s Market Access Advisory Committee in which industry associations and government departments can discuss avenues for resolution before initiating enforcement mechanisms.”

That relates to my earlier question, and I want to ask the Minister why it has not been developed yet—or has progress been made towards achieving such a mechanism?

The trade barrier regulation is only one area of the EU legislation that deals with dumping. The SI before the Committee is part of the process of revoking the EU legislation. What is happening to other pieces of EU legislation that deal with dumping? Specifically, what will happen to EU regulation 2016/1036 on protection against dumped imports, and EU regulation 2016/1037 on protection against subsidised imports?

To return to my main points, we have a system—the Minister made the point that there has been a decline in its use over 25 years—in which trade barriers have been addressed through our membership of the EU. It appears that there has not been an evidence-based approach to considering how effective that system has been, and whether something similar would work. May I suggest to the Minister that, rather than revoking the regulation, it might have been a good idea to make a greater effort to investigate whether the current system was effective and whether the fact that its statutory element was not used very often was a sign that it was working successfully, rather than the opposite? I need to hear from him how the alternatives that he proposes will deliver the same level of protection for UK businesses that we have seen under the current system.

Draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Economic Partnership Agreements and Trade Agreement) (Eastern and Southern Africa States, Southern African Development Community States, Ghana and Ecuador) Order 2018

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.

The four agreements that we are discussing will form the basis for future UK deals with the countries covered by the four agreements. The Trade Bill, which is still going through the Lords, prevents us from discussing the contents of the agreements after today’s debate. Having further parliamentary scrutiny, including of any amendments, once those agreements are rolled over or renegotiated—whichever happens after we leave the European Union—will be entirely for the Secretary of State to decide, so we need to take advantage of today’s proceedings and challenge the Government, because there will not be another opportunity.

Reports suggest that the three economic partnership agreements that we are discussing were agreed under significant pressure. It is therefore highly likely—notwithstanding what the Minister said when he quoted one of his counterparts saying that they are ready to roll the agreements over—that there may be a desire to renegotiate. South Africa’s deputy Trade and Industry Minister when the agreements were signed, Dr Rob Davies, said that they were signed “under duress”, at the risk of having tariff-free access to the EU withdrawn. For those reasons, it seems highly likely that these partners will try to renegotiate, so today’s debate is extremely important.

The statutory instrument relates to four multi-country trade agreements, as the Minister said, which we are party to as a result of being members of the EU. There is one free trade agreement and three EPAs, which relate to trade with developing countries. The objective of the agreements is to increase trade and investment opportunities. The explanatory memorandum lists the advantages of developing nation partners as

“providing duty and quota-free access for exports to the EU; more integrated regional markets; more flexible, simpler rules of origin; no undue competition and a context of wider reforms and helping to address broader trade issues such as technical barriers to trade and labour rights.”

Could the Minister let us know what is meant by technical barriers to trade and labour rights? I could not find any further detail on that point. The explanatory memorandum then moves on to the benefits to

“consumers and workers in Europe by the removal of trade barriers, the promotion of exports from developing countries resulting in wider choice, lower prices, better value and wider ethical choice options.”

The benefits to UK businesses are listed in the impact section of the explanatory memorandum. The estimated increase to UK GDP of £24 million as a result of Ecuador’s accession to the EU-Andean EPA is given as an example of the opportunities presented by removing barriers to trade. The Ecuador protocol of accession includes a chapter on public procurement, and the explanatory memorandum suggests that there may be an impact on UK public services as a result. Can the Minister tell us what that impact is likely to be?

The impact assessment of Ecuador’s accession refers to the relationship between trade openness and economic growth. It then quotes the fall in the poverty rate since China opened up its economy as a “striking example”. China may well be a striking example, but it is also strikingly different from Ghana, Ecuador and the Eastern and Southern Africa states, and the Southern African development community states. They do not have the opportunity of modernising their industries by keeping their borders closed, as happened in China, nor do they have the economic power of China.

The impact assessments each make the point that trade is beneficial. Indeed, paragraph 1.3 of the Ecuador impact assessment states:

“Free and fair trade is fundamental to the prosperity of the EU, the UK and the world economy.”

The key point is that it needs to be fair, not just free.

The impact assessments also demonstrate the benefits of free trade agreements. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East said, we are of course a member of a free trade agreement, in a market with 500 million consumers—the European Union. It covers 60% of our trade, either directly with the other 27 countries of the EU, or indirectly through agreements that the EU has with other countries, including those we are discussing today. The EPAs under discussion have already been provisionally applied, of course.

The Ecuador impact assessment says:

“the evidence suggests that FTAs enhance trade flows”,

as our membership of the EU has proved. Significantly, the Ghana impact assessment admits:

“There is very little quantitative evidence on the impact of EPAs.”

We support the objectives of supporting trade with the developing nations, boosting their economies and prosperities, and doing so while boosting our own economy, but we must explore whether these agreements will deliver the proposed objectives. It is telling that the Government acknowledge in paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory notes that there had been criticism of the agreements, but that reference is all they have to say about the criticism. There is the slight exception in that three of the four impact assessments contain an index that refers to section 8—“Sensitivity analysis & risks”. Curiously, in each of the three impact assessments that list section 8 in the index, after section 7, “Impact Tests”, the next items are annex A and annex B—“estimated one-off costs” and “most-traded product lines”—followed by a blank page. There is no content for the “Sensitivity analysis & risks” sections in any of them. The fourth, by the way, does not have a section 8.

Will the Minister explain those omissions and tell us what was meant to be in those section 8s? Failing that—or perhaps in addition—will he tell us what the criticisms of the agreements, which are referred to in the explanatory notes, are? I am afraid I was unable to find any reference to them anywhere in what the Government have written.

To give the Minister time to find answers to those questions, I thought it would be sensible to go through some of the concerns that have been raised. Perhaps he might want to say something about that when he responds. Concerns have been raised about the impact on developing nations and about the regional impact of economic partnership agreements. A common criticism is that “most favoured nation” clauses restrict the ability of developing nations to reach trade agreements with their neighbours, as the same benefits, or better, in such agreements have to go to the EU. Instead of opening up trade for developing nations, the concern is that economic partnership agreements risk restricting trade.

I said earlier that the Government admitted in the impact assessments that there is a lack of quantitative evidence about the benefits. The longest-running economic partnership agreement is in the Caribbean. It started in 2008, but according to the European Commission’s impact assessment from 2014, there has been minimal domestic growth in the Caribbean since the EPA was implemented.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the uncompetitive nature of poultry farming in Ghana has left Ghanaian producers unable to deal with the lower cost of imported food following trade liberalisation. Those are the IMF’s words, not mine. The IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office report on international trade policy from 2009 says that the poultry sector in Ghana was much more vulnerable to competition from imports than IMF staff believed. The IMF forced the Ghanaian Government to reverse the Ghanaian parliamentary decision to raise tariffs to protect the poultry industry, with disastrous consequences for poultry farming in Ghana and for the communities that depended on that farming and its economic benefits.

The experience in a number of African countries has been of moving from self-sufficiency, or near self-sufficiency, in food to reliance on imports. Economies have moved from domestic production of food to foreign-owned production of cash crops such as cocoa, coffee, peanuts, sugar, cotton, rubber, palm oil and tobacco. They have moved away from the production of food and towards a reliance on imports of food.

Let us look at the experience of countries such as Tanzania, where the EU already has an agreement. Fish prices have gone up to such an extent that locals are unable to afford fish that has been caught in Lake Victoria; such fish are now almost exclusively caught for export. Some 49% of fish from Tanzania goes to the EU, and most of the rest is exported elsewhere. Locals have to rely on so-called fish skeletons—the remnants from fish that are caught in the Nile or in the lake and exported. The experience in east Africa is of produce being exported to the EU, driving up prices and undermining food security. In this case, the suggestion is that far from helping trade from developing nations, the east Africa economic partnership agreement has restricted it and made industrialisation and growth harder to achieve. The case of Tanzania and the east Africa EPA is a cautionary tale of what can happen if these agreements are not applied with care.

As we leave the EU, we will, as a result of our EU membership, be party to 70 or so trade agreements that we will need to renegotiate. The four agreements covered by this statutory instrument will need to be agreed again. The Trade Bill, which is slowly making its way through the Lords, makes provision for what the Government call the roll-over of these agreements, but the roll-over depends on whether the third-party countries to the agreements want to sign the same agreement or take the opportunity to revisit it. Given the concerns that I voiced at the start of my remarks, we should not be surprised if that happens with some or all of the agreement we are considering.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that significant concerns have been raised by the devolved nations, particularly Scotland, about the lack of transparency, consent and consultation on trade agreements. I have no doubt that the Government will have to face up to and think about that carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

My right hon. Friend is quite right: the UK has been a key driver of that agenda. He is also right that the EU27 may well take a different approach. However, the UK approach remains strongly and resolutely in favour of promoting gender equality in trade and making sure that trade works particularly for women entrepreneurs, who make up a disproportionate part of the online entrepreneurial community.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

This will be my last outing as the Scottish National party trade spokesman; I will be moving to pastures new in Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Secretary of State and his team. While we do not always agree—in fact, rarely—our discussions and exchanges are always respectful and lively.

The 2013 Rana Plaza disaster is a prime example of how growth in export industries can have devastating results, particularly for women and girls. Jobs were created that were unsafe and had exploitative conditions for the largely female factory workers. Can the Minister assure the House and indeed everyone across the UK that any trade deals he does will not result in the exploitation of anyone, in particular women and girls?

[Mr Speaker]

May I say to the hon. Lady that I hope in her new role the sky will be just as blue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There are some good tie-ups between the work of the Department for International Development and the Women and Equalities role. I hope that I will be able to help both Departments by being the joint Minister. We spend around £1 billion on education, half of which is specifically to help girls to access good-quality education. Most recently, we announced a further £212 million of funding through the girls’ education challenge, to ensure that almost a million more marginalised girls throughout the Commonwealth can receive good-quality education.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Earlier in questions, the sharing of data and the working together of Departments in relation to domestic abuse and domestic violence was mentioned. Some time ago, I had a constituent whose data was shared, which meant that she had to come out of hiding, where she was being protected, and to move to another place because of that sharing of data by the Department for Work and Pensions. I know that that is something that the Minister is working on, but can she ensure that the highest possible resource and focus is given to this issue, because my constituent’s life was put in danger by the fact that her data was shared with her ex-partner?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am dismayed to hear that. Clearly, that is not the intention of the amendments to the Data Protection Bill. We have put a declaratory statement in the Bill to encourage and give confidence to all the agencies involved in safeguarding that, under the Bill, they do have the right to share information for the purposes of safeguarding. I am extremely concerned to hear of the hon. Lady’s case, and if she will write to me please, I will look into it.

Leaving the EU: Future Trade Remedies

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) for securing this debate on future trade remedies. He is ahead of the curve on this issue, because amid the wrangling over Brexit we have rather overlooked the profile that this issue will have. I believe that it will become ever more pressing as we chart a new path beyond the EU. It is therefore important at this stage, as we draw up our Trade Remedies Authority, that we get its basic structure right.

As I have said before in this House, we are lucky to be among the first generation of politicians in more than 40 years to be drawing up our own independent trade policy, but that means we are also very green as a nation in fully grasping trade legislation and its implications. None the less, these are issues of enormous relevance to consumers and to businesses of all sizes in our constituencies. It is all well and good for us to be free traders in principle, but in practice many of those principles can be sorely tested when producers in our own constituencies are challenged by international competition. Indeed, they can be tested to breaking point when that competition is able to undercut domestic businesses due to the state subsidy or economic structure of their own countries.

My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the capacity of Chinese pottery firms to undercut domestic industries, with a speed that can pull the rug from under industries that have been carefully developed over many years. Equally, however, cheaper products from abroad can be a boon to other industries, for instance by providing cheap steel for car manufacture, helping to retain production on these shores and delivering cheaper prices for consumers. These are not simple issues and they must be carefully considered.

As a member of the International Trade Committee, which has been closely examining the Government’s plans to set up our own Trade Remedies Authority, I have been encouraging the Government to study the arrangements of respected trade authorities in other nations, particularly the US and Canada. Throughout the TRA process I have been concerned about the amount of power being vested in the hands of the Secretary of State, including over appointments to the TRA’s board. I am also concerned about whether the TRA will be sufficiently skilled and resourced for what can be extremely intensive investigations.

In the US, the body responsible for injury investigations alone, the United States International Trade Commission, has several hundred employees. Given the difficulty that the Select Committee has securing sufficiently knowledgeable domestic trade panellists, we have a considerable recruitment challenge on our hands. As we leave the EU, there is the chance to produce a more flexible and responsive trade remedies model. UK Steel sees the EU’s decision-making process as monolithic, with too much power in the hands of the Commission and a heavily politicised system. We have opted for an approach similar to Australia’s, but in a recent Committee session one of our panellists expressed concerns that producer interests are beginning to take a much stronger precedence in that system.

I still believe that we would do well to consider the bifurcated model of the US and Canada, with subsidy and injury investigated separately to avoid politicisation and bias. With our TRA’s chair and non-executive members all appointed by the Secretary of State, and with the Secretary of State retaining the ultimate say on the imposition of a trade remedy, I must confess that I am uneasy about the concentration of power in ministerial hands, given the prospect of a much more interventionist Opposition taking power.

Our new regime must be open and transparent, and have integrity and credibility. I therefore suggest that we try to take steps to ensure that the executive board of any TRA is open to independent scrutiny, perhaps through the Select Committee, rather than being only a matter for the Secretary of State to decide. I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s concerns about dumped and subsidised produce, and the issue of transparency on the economic interest and public interest tests. Trade remedies are currently a highly political issue, and it is vital that our own desire to secure trade deals does not prevent us from imposing trade remedies if we need to in the event of dumping.

It is also necessary to flesh out the appeals mechanism for trade remedies. There is much that remains up for grabs, with a lot being allocated to statutory instruments by the Secretary of State, and details remain patchy. I would be grateful if the Minister could use his contribution to the debate to assure us further of his Department’s progress in establishing a robust TRA in time for March 2019, if we are unable to secure the deal with the EU that we seek.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady makes a number of points that I find myself agreeing with. I am sure that I will get the opportunity to say this in my own contribution but, given what she has said about the Trade Remedies Authority being a transparent and fully representative body, does she agree that the amendments put forward by the Scottish National party and Labour, with the support of Plaid Cymru, to have representatives from all the devolved nations are vital?

[Julia Lopez]

I might be sympathetic to that, but there is a real concern that all those on the board of the Trade Remedies Authority should be able to rise above particular interests. Those particular interests could be strong industrial concerns in particular regions of the UK. Board members will need to be able to look at the UK as a whole and weigh up different arguments made to them. I would have concerns about being very prescriptive about exactly who should be on any board. None the less, there needs to be independent scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s decisions in making those appointments. On that note, my contribution has ended.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I agree with other hon. Members that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) has brought this debate to the Chamber in a timely manner. I can only hope that the Government will bring the Trade Bill to the Floor of the House on Report also in a timely manner. We all await it with great anticipation and bated breath. Those of us who sat on the Trade Bill Committee had a good and robust debate.

I share some of the concerns expressed by previous speakers, and I know they are shared by several sectors and organisations. As the Member for Livingston, I represent a constituency that has been at the forefront of Scottish manufacturing. The Minister and I have worked directly and personally on some challenges in my constituency, and I pay tribute to the work he has done in his ministerial role. I cannot reveal the details of the company or the organisation involved, but I know him to be extremely hard working and willing to work across parties. While we may not agree on the current approach and wording of the Bill, I know that he shares my determination to support Scottish manufacturing and to ensure that companies that face problems when trading abroad are supported. I wanted to briefly say that.

I feel that, in a recent debate on the Floor of the House, the Scottish National party’s position was somewhat misrepresented by the Secretary of State, which I am sure he did not mean to do. Our opposition was not to the notion of the Trade Remedies Authority—we accept that it will be needed, for the many reasons already outlined—but to the detail and the way it is to be set up, and the lack of engagement with the devolved nations and the lack of opportunity for them to have a say and to be represented. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) about special interests, but surely we in this place can recognise that many membership organisations are set up with representation at UK level and fair representation for each of the devolved nations. As we leave the EU, knowing the way that Scotland and other parts of the UK voted in that referendum and the importance of trade to our economy, surely the Minister recognises the importance of Scotland and the other UK nations having a permanent seat and a commissioner. To reiterate, the SNP position is to have a commissioner in the TRA and—very much in line with what the hon. Lady said, and about it not being a London-centric Whitehall Department—to have TRA offices in the devolved nations, and even in regions of England. It is only fair and right that we take a sensible approach. This is not something that I want to be seen as being party political about. The Minister and his Department should give that serious thought.

A cross-party, collaborative approach was taken to the UK Green Investment Bank. Its headquarters are in Edinburgh, so it takes a different view and a different perspective, and it takes talent and opportunity from Scotland. We see that organisation invest across the UK while being outwith London. When we look at the TRA and the many challenges that face us post Brexit, devolving more power and opportunity to other parts of the United Kingdom is extremely important. I hope that the Minister will look again at the amendments we proposed—we will table further amendments on Report—and give them serious consideration.

The British Ceramic Confederation, which has been mentioned, has raised several legitimate concerns, and I hope that the Minister will give some more detail and indicate his views. One concern raised with me in a number of meetings with organisations and businesses is the lack of clarity and detail about the Government’s approach and about putting meat on the bones of the TRA. That is something we all feel strongly about.

The BCC is concerned that there is no indication that the TRA will use any special methodology when investigating countries with distorted local prices. That is crucial, as China and Russia, where domestic prices are not decided by market forces, are the main dumping culprits. I know that dumping concerns us all. It would also be interesting to hear how injury will be calculated. Some of these are very technical terms, but the BCC feels it is crucial, as that is how the UK will set its anti-dumping duties because of the decision to adopt the lesser duty role. It also raises the point of presumption, with the economic and public interest tests not being clear. It suggests that special consideration should be given within the tests to the need to remove injurious dumping subsidies.

ActionAid also gave me an excellent briefing recently, and I pay tribute to it for raising concerns about human rights and gender inequality. Those matters have been championed and challenged through the EU. I know that the Government always have warm words on human rights and on making sure that imported goods meet the highest standards, and I hope that that will be very much at the heart of the TRA and that it will take the opportunity to consider that.

I also hope that the Trade Bill will come back as soon as possible; perhaps the Minister will give a potential date. I would not like to press him too hard, but hopefully he has some thoughts on that. It is extremely important that we have clarity, because businesses are asking for it and want to know. In terms of the vision that he wants to set out, we have a clear view on Brexit and on the EU and remaining within the customs union and single market. However, as we set up these organisations, it is fair to say that there is an opportunity, in the sense that something new will have to be created.

There are major risks across all sectors of the UK and across all the devolved nations, and it is my firm belief that significant damage will be done to fishing, farming and manufacturing. However, the Government must be absolutely certain that, when setting up new bodies and organisations, those warm words are lived up to, that that promise of devolution to the devolved nations is taken as seriously as possible and that we are fully engaged in that process.

I go back to my point about looking at the amendments, having discussions and looking at the good work that was done on things like the UK Green Investment Bank. The Minister should give serious consideration to how the devolved nations will be involved in the TRA and how it will serve the nations and their sectors, because there is no doubt that the devolved nations of the United Kingdom have distinct sectors and deserve the opportunity to play their full part. I hope that he can give some hope and certainty to my constituents in Livingston and to businesses in my constituency, across Scotland and across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) on securing the debate. As you will know, Mr Hollobone, it is relatively rare, so far, for the Department for International Trade to be in Westminster Hall, so I welcome this opportunity to set out some of our proposals on trade remedies. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about recent UK trading success, the record levels of investment and the UK’s role in supporting the global rules-based system of trade, which is extremely important at the moment—it is important that we get that on the record right away.

I know well that my hon. Friend is passionate about his constituency and about defending manufacturing in Stoke. He was the first MP from the region to approach me, very soon after his election in June 2017, to talk about the importance of trade remedies to his constituents. He also introduced me to the British Ceramic Confederation, whose representatives I have now met three times in connection with trade remedies, as well as the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance.

I also thank the other Members who have contributed to the debate. I will get through as many of the points that were made as I can. I thank them all for their contributions in a short debate—perhaps it could usefully have been longer. I will try to reply to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), even though he is no longer here, but first let me say a few things about the actual contributions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) made a number of important points. He of course is passionate about oil and gas in Scotland—as are we in the Department for International Trade—and about the capabilities and the future of fisheries exports from his constituency. We are working very closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to pursue that. I heard his call for a DIT office in Aberdeen. I can tell him that the majority of DIT’s oil and gas team is based in Glasgow and spends significant time in Aberdeen. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are significant opportunities in the future. Only yesterday I was speaking to Wood Group, which, as my hon. Friend will know, is headquartered in Aberdeen, about the significant opportunities that the Commonwealth markets offer them, which he also referred to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) is an active member of the International Trade Committee. I gave evidence to her Committee—it must have been in early March—on the Trade Remedies Authority. It is a little bit early to say exactly how big this new organisation will be. We have yet to appoint the chair, let alone any members of it. However, I think an early indication of the sort of budget we are looking at is in the region of £15 million to £20 million a year. I referred at the Committee hearings to the size of the EU’s operation, which is about 100 people working on trade remedies within DG Trade. That will give some early indication of the sort of size we are thinking about for that body.

I thank the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) for her kind words. We have worked together on two or three issues with companies in her constituency. I have worked for their interests abroad, particularly on recent cases. She and I have a constructive relationship. I will answer a few points she made upfront. We talked about representation across the UK during the Bill Committee. She will know that the important thing is for the up to nine members of the board to think about how trade remedies work right across the UK and not to be beholden to any particular nation, region, interest group or company anywhere in the UK, but to have an expert view on how trade remedies might work throughout the UK.

[Hannah Bardell]

I take on board the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I fail to understand why somebody from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland would be any less able to understand the distinct nature of the economies of their country as opposed to taking a wider view. The two need not be mutually exclusive. In the spirit of co-operation, and doing the right thing and what is best for the UK as a whole, why not have representatives and offices across the UK?

[Greg Hands]

I very much agree with the hon. Lady. It is perfectly possible and quite likely that of those nine members, one or more will originate from the devolved nations. The point is, however, that they should be appointed for their expertise in assessing some of these quite technical aspects, such as the determination of dumping, the calculation of injury and so on. The point is not to appoint them to represent a nation, region or particular stakeholder of the UK, but to have an interest across the board. She mentioned the possibility of satellite offices. I gave an indication of the likely size of the body.

[Greg Hands]

I feel that I have already answered this. We want a set of people who have expertise in the subject matter, rather than who come from a particular perspective, body, nation or region. That is the most important thing. Returning to the question of location, I think satellite officers would add cost, but I stress to the hon. Member for Livingston that we have yet to make a decision on where the location of the body should be. Again, that will be driven by where we can access the expertise that would be needed for this Trade Remedies Authority. I mentioned earlier that the Department for International Trade has placed a significant part of its operation in Scotland, for example through the oil and gas team in Glasgow, so as a Department we are not averse to placing something in one of the devolved nations of the UK.

I do not want to labour the point, but the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) goes on about his reasoned amendments. Mr Hollobone, given your long years in the House, you know perhaps better than anybody that when you put down a reasoned amendment, it normally means that you wish to vote for the reasoned amendment, because you wish to propose some way in which to improve the legislation, but you would not normally vote for a reasoned amendment and then vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. My point is that by voting against the Second Reading of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman showed that he disagreed with the central core of the Bill, part of which, of course, is to set up the Trade Remedies Authority.

This Government firmly believe in the benefits of free trade—I will come back to some of the other points raised in a moment—for consumers, earnings and jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South spoke powerfully about the importance of the ceramics industry for his constituency, which is a huge UK success story as an industry. Other hon. Members have spoken about their own local industries as well. Our manufacturers benefit from trade. Manufacturing makes up 8% of our economy, but most of our exports. I think we all agree that free trade does not mean trade without rules, whether product safety or IP protection; some of the most important rules will be our system of trade remedies.

WTO members are permitted to take action where their domestic industry is suffering harm as a result of unfair trade practices such as dumping, where foreign companies sell their products in the UK for less than they are sold at home, or subsidies, which let foreign companies sell goods in the UK at a lower price than they would otherwise be able to. Members can also act in response to harm caused by unexpected surges in imports. In such cases, members can introduce safeguard measures to give industry time to adjust against unexpected surges in imports. Well-functioning trade remedies can level the playing field for domestic industry, by counteracting any unfair subsidies, dumping or unexpected import surges. They can also deter dumping and unfair subsidies from happening in the first place. It is important to have these first and foremost as a basic matter of fairness. Our industries should not lose contracts and our workers should not lose jobs because a foreign company has gained an unfair advantage. It would also be unfair if jobs were lost that could have been saved if only industry had been given time to adjust. That is why we are introducing a rigorous and robust system of remedies, which provides for the full suite of powers offered under WTO rules.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South raised points about existing EU trade remedies. He should bear it in mind that we have just finished a call for evidence on the existing EU trade remedies. That call for evidence closed on 30 March. The response was good. We will be looking at our response to that in due course. We have been clear that when we operate our own trade remedies system, we will transition those measures in the EU system that matter to UK business. We received over 70 responses from producers and other interested parties in that consultation. Most importantly, I can assure hon. Members there will not be one day when a UK industry that needs protection from unfairly traded imports will be left alone.

I will quickly answer the point made by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe about a transparent approach. The Government will use secondary legislation to set out the details of the TRA’s framework. That is very important. Mr Hollobone, you will know from your years in the House that secondary legislation is not on the face of it particularly welcomed by legislators, but it is important in this case to be able to have a dynamic body of law that particularly reflects recent WTO case law, rather than write all of these details on to the face of the two Bills that are currently passing through the House of Commons. In particular this secondary legislation will include the different dumping methodologies and the level of remedy required to address injury to UK industry. We are meeting trade bodies in the coming days to talk about some of those details. In the future, the TRA will set out the way in which it has carried out its calculations in any investigation as part of a commitment to transparency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South asked about the de minimis threshold. At what level would an investigation simply not be taken on, because the amount of product produced in the UK was below a particular amount? If UK producers have a negligible share of the total UK market, the TRA would not initiate an investigation, as it would be unlikely to result in measures. For example, a company could be the only producer of widgets in the UK and therefore meet the WTO requirements to bring a case, but if that company produced a negligible proportion of the widgets actually bought in the UK—in other words, the total market that is there—putting duties in place would have a disproportionate effect on the rest of the market, much of which would not necessarily be consumers, but could be other businesses and industries purchasing that product. That is why we will have a de minimis threshold.

In special cases, the TRA could choose to waive the threshold, which, by the way, we have not yet set. That would help to avoid a scenario in which an industry’s market share is negligible precisely because of the impact of dumped imports, or in cases involving an emerging UK industry struggling to establish itself in the face of dumped or subsidised imports. I assure my hon. Friend that it will reflect a de minimis level, but there will be exceptions. The TRA will be able to overrule.

My hon. Friend asked whether EU measures will be transitioned for the full five years. We have agreed that EU trade remedy rules and regulations will continue to apply during the implementation period. We will assess which EU measures matter to UK industry, which the call for evidence that closed last month did, and maintain those measures at their current level until the TRA reviews them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon mentioned agricultural imports. Our trade remedies framework will enable the TRA to investigate unfairly subsidised imports where they are injuring UK agricultural producers and to take action where appropriate. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working on a safeguards regime for agricultural products to address the issues that my hon. Friend identified.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster asked whether the TRA should consist of two bodies. There are, of course, always different views. There is not an exact parallel. We have looked at systems across the world, as she knows from the evidence I gave to the Committee. However, I believe that we are setting up the TRA with the right level of independence to allow it to reach informed and objective conclusions, which includes clear projections for the TRA’s independence, impartiality and expertise. Other countries that use a single-body trade remedy system include Australia and New Zealand.

It is standard practice for the chair and the non-execs to be ministerial appointments. The other members would typically be appointed by the chair. That is the practice we have followed in relation to the Trade Remedies Authority.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

No, I am going to finish. I have perhaps not been able to answer every single point. Obviously, this is a matter for legislation that is still continuing its passage through the House. I hope that I have outlined some of the strengths of the trade remedies regime. We look forward to further engagement during the passage of the Bills.

[Jack Brereton]

I would like to thank all Members who have taken part in the debate, and the Minister for his response.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) for his important responses about industries in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) also made important points about the challenges of unfair international competition and the setting up of the TRA. I am pleased that the Minister has referenced the importance of the TRA’s objectivity in the actions that it takes.

I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said, but I certainly agree with her points about the Minister. He is exceptionally diligent and very hard-working.

[Hannah Bardell]

I will just ask the hon. Gentleman this question, as I did not get the chance to make the point to the Minister. I think it is great that the hon. Gentleman secured this debate, but does he agree that we need to have the Trade Bill back on the Floor of the House on Report, to have a substantive debate and get more information on the Trade Remedies Authority as soon as possible?

I love the Library staff and their briefings, particularly when they are as direct as this one. In the “Comment” section, it says:

“The Bill establishes the TRA but says relatively little about its functions or the Government’s approach to trade remedies.”

I could not put it better myself. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that business and all the nations of the UK need more information on this as soon as possible?

[Jack Brereton]

The measures that the Trade Remedies Authority will set out will be set out in the customs Bill, so I encourage the Government to introduce that Bill as soon as possible.

I did not agree with everything that was said by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, but I agree that it was Conservatives who previously put forward these points in the EU and were the strongest advocates for the current trade remedies. It is about creating that level playing field and not about protectionism. I agree with that.

I thank the Minister for his responses and the clarity he offered about the transitioning. I am very pleased that it will include transitioning measures across from what is in place in the EU to the UK’s trade remedies regime. I also thank him for the clarity around some of the secondary measures.

United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

The EU is taking countermeasures because the EU views section 232 itself as a safeguard. Any action that the United States were to take in response to that would be completely out of line with international trade law, as well as exacerbating an already tense situation.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

This really is a blow to those right-wing, free-market Brexiteers who argue that the US will welcome a trade deal with open arms. Anyone looking at the somewhat unhinged tweets coming out of President Trump’s office will tell us otherwise. Given the Secretary of State’s nationality and where he was brought up, I am interested to know whether he has raised the matter specifically of Scottish steel and aluminium, and the steel industry’s impact on all nations of the UK. It was in 1992 that his Conservative Government closed Ravenscraig in Scotland, decimating 1,200 jobs and livelihoods, and it was the Scottish National party Government in Scotland who brought back into production the steelworks in Clydebridge and Dalzell and the aluminium smelter in Lochaber. We are fed up in Scotland with clearing up his Government’s mess and we do not want to have to do it again.

We know from recent reports in the press that the geographical indicators of products such as Scotch whisky could be under threat in a US-UK trade deal. The Secretary of State may have seen the article in The Scotsman last week suggesting that Scotch whisky is

“among the products that could carry a ‘Made in America’ tag after Brexit.”

It further said:

“US lobbyists are calling for the UK to drop geographical name protections after Brexit to allow supermarkets to import American copies.”

That would be outrageous.

Will the Secretary of State commit to protecting our valuable steel and aluminium industries and not to trading off our vital GIs for Scotch whisky in any trade deals? Given that a Tory Brexit would reduce UK GDP by 8% and put at risk some of our key exports, will he finally reconsider his approach to Brexit and admit that he was wrong in suggesting that leaving the EU single market and customs union could somehow be overcome by magical trade deals with the US and the EU that were going to be, in his words, the “easiest in human history”?

[Dr Fox]

It is not long since I remember the SNP being delighted at some of Mr Trump’s tweets, when he was having some of his relationships with the previous SNP leader.

We can best tackle this issue as a united United Kingdom in line with our European Union partners. The hon. Lady dares to raise the issue of GI. These matters are in the roll-over of the EU trade agreement for which we are trying to get continuity in our current Trade Bill and the customs Bill. She needs to understand that she actually voted against the roll-over of those Bills that would have given the very protections for which she is asking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

We touched on that earlier. We will do that by replicating the trade remedies measures that exist. To do it, however, we have to set up a Trade Remedies Authority under the Trade Bill that is currently going through the House. I hope that the Opposition parties will look again at their rather inexplicable decision to vote against the setting up of a Trade Remedies Authority.

[Hannah Bardell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Unfortunately points of order come at the end of the statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

We work in collaboration with the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership to attract foreign direct investment into Devon. More widely, the Department works with local enterprise partnerships and local authorities across the south-west to promote inward investment opportunities to foreign-owned companies. In 2016-17, DIT recorded 101 inward investment projects in the south-west, creating 3,402 new jobs.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Although my party does not want to leave the single market or the customs union, a properly planned and managed transition period is always top of the agenda for businesses across Scotland, particularly in our thriving food and drink sector. Does the Secretary of State agree with his own Government that a sensible transition period is required, or is he sticking to his cliff-edge position, which will have a devastating impact for businesses across Scotland and the UK?

[Dr Fox]

We believe across Government that the simplest way to get to the position that we will be able to enjoy, of leaving the single market and the customs union, is via a transition period that is carefully planned and that gives predictability to business.

Trade Bill (Eighth sitting)

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will try to assist the Committee with concluding proceedings before 2 pm.

The new clause is all about the Bill’s impact on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The history so far is that, instead of taking back control, the Brexit process appears to be an interdepartmental bun fight for resources, both cash and human. Right now, there is a Brexit gravy train for consultants, and experts are suddenly back in demand. That was confirmed by the Chancellor, when in the autumn Budget he allocated a further £3 billion over the next two years to Brexit preparations.

Brexit will cause an unprecedented rise in workload for HMRC, whatever customs and tariff arrangements are made. In addition, goods traded with the EU will need to be accounted for as international exports. That is all happening at a time when, as all Members know, the Tory Government are slashing staff and closing HMRC offices across the nations of the UK.

At the same time, HMRC is launching a new customs declaration service, starting in August 2018, with the intention that it will be implemented in full by January 2019. That will replace the customs handling of import and export freight system, which is nearly 25 years old and cannot be easily adapted to new requirements. I think everyone on the Committee will be cynical about that—who has ever heard of a massive IT project that goes live on time and is easily adaptable to suit future processes?

There are serious concerns about whether the system can be put in place properly just a few months before Brexit, given that customs declarations are expected to more than triple once the UK leaves the EU. The National Audit Office has said that the number of customs declarations could increase from 55 million to 255 million if tax and duties must be collected on trade between the UK and EU.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that what we have seen across the UK, including from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, is huge criticism of the UK Government’s change programme? In my constituency, they want to centralise the Livingston HMRC office to Edinburgh. There will be a devastating impact on communities and the continuity of services will be impacted just a moment before these other plans take place. The Government should rethink the process wholesale.

[Alan Brown]

It will come as no surprise that I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The closing of HMRC offices is yet another example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing and of a complete lack of strategic thinking.

Jon Thompson, the chief executive of HMRC, has warned that border and tax checks post-Brexit could require an additional 5,000 staff, with new customs checks costing the taxpayer up to £800 million. Given the uncertainty about future customs arrangements, the fact that HMRC is already undertaking a system overhaul, that the number of declarations could increase fourfold and that transitional arrangements are still unknown, it makes complete sense to assess the impact on HMRC, which is responsible for the taxing and checking of trade that will arise from the Bill.

The new clause would allow for greater parliamentary scrutiny and force an internal departmental impact assessment. This week alone has shown that it takes much effort to force the Government’s hand on impact assessments and for them to be up front about what the impact of Brexit will be. That is why I move the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

The Government have made it clear that we seek to maintain the effects of the UK’s existing trade agreements. We make that commitment in relation to all parts of the United Kingdom, which means that we do not intend Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or, indeed, England to be disproportionately impacted by the transitioning of those agreements. Given that we have committed to seeking continuity in the effects of existing agreements, the impact of the transition should be neutral on all parts of the UK.

[Hannah Bardell]

While I take what the right hon. Gentleman says with the greatest of respect—I want to believe him—can he not see that, from the perspective of those of us from the devolved nations, the written and oral evidence given to the Committee paints a very different picture from that which he paints here today? Our concerns are legitimate, yet we have nothing. The Government have supported none of our amendments, despite promises made on the Floor of the House.

[Greg Hands]

I will come on to outline the engagement that we have had with the devolved Administrations and to talk about what that engagement might look like in the future. I stress to the hon. Lady that the Bill is about transitioning agreements that, in most cases, are already in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

As I have laid out frequently, the substance of the agreements will be the same. That is what we are looking to transition; that is the continuity factor of these agreements. There will of course be the opportunity in the future to come to new trade agreements with the same countries, but we are talking about the continuity of our existing trading arrangements—the 40-plus agreements with 70-plus nations.

On consultation with the devolved Administrations, the Department for International Trade ensures that its Ministers, as well as its directors and other senior officials, visit the devolved Administrations regularly and continually looks for further opportunities to engage with a range of stakeholders across the UK. Indeed, the hon. Member for Livingston knows that, because on a previous visit to Edinburgh I actually went to her constituency. The Secretary of State has engaged with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and with the Northern Ireland Executive.

[Hannah Bardell]

We were very glad to welcome the Minister to Livingston and I have been glad to engage with him on issues in my constituency. However, does he not recognise that engagement and consultation are very different from consent? The importance of consent and the devolution settlement being rowed back on are very different issues.

Trade Bill (Sixth sitting)

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

On amendment 35, in the name of the Scottish National party, we have been clear that we will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations as we transition our current arrangements.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman is determined, in his approach and plan, to consult the devolved nations. If he is, why not put that in the Bill to ensure that it happens?

[Greg Hands]

Because I like to keep legislation as brief as possible and, as I shall explain, I do not think it necessary for us to write that obligation into the Bill. Of course, we would continue to engage should we need to extend the clause beyond its sunset five years after exit day.

I was intrigued by the exchange between the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Brent North. I am still trying to find out why, on Thursday, the Labour Front-Bench team did not support the amendment promoted by the Welsh Government. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman properly explained, but perhaps when he responds he can throw a little more light on why he has seemingly jettisoned his colleagues from Wales, one of whom is on this very Committee.

On the requirement for a legislative consent motion, we have been clear that we are seeking such a motion for the Bill. I heard what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said about that, and I am sure that we will engage further. We are obviously talking to the devolved Administrations so that we can work towards delivering a Bill that will benefit the whole UK. Given that, we do not think that the formal commitments on consultation and engagement in amendment 35 would add substantively to the Bill. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Perhaps the appointment of the non-executives can cover all those areas.

Trade remedies and the Trade Remedies Authority are a key element of our trade policy. Gareth Stace of UK Steel told us in one evidence session that

“If we get this very wrong, we become the dumping ground—not just in Europe, but for the rest of the world.”–––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 66, Q127.]

It is therefore essential that we get it right, and the Bill is our opportunity to do that. The Government have spent the past few days in Committee trying to convince us that the Bill is a technical little Bill that is not trying to do much other than put in place necessary frameworks. On the Trade Remedies Authority in particular, they have gone to great pains to stress that they are simply setting up the necessary structures to carry out our trade defence once we have left the European Union. This much is true: the Trade Bill does set up the Trade Remedies Authority, which will be a key component of our trade policy once we leave the European Union, when we have to carry out our own trade remedies.

[Hannah Bardell]

rose—

[Faisal Rashid]

rose—

[Bill Esterson]

I am spoiled for choice. I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—that was a clash of interventions and I am glad to have won the battle. I absolutely agree with him. Does he agree with me that, although none of us, unfortunately, has tabled the amendment that has just occurred to me, the authority should reflect the gender balance of society? Perhaps there should be a gender balance mechanism, as it will be a public body.

[Bill Esterson]

It is really important that we take on the challenge set by the hon. Lady and apply it to all public bodies. How we achieve such a gender balance is perhaps a question for wider discussion, but her point is well made. The Minister might achieve the balance she suggests when he creates the authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Yes, that is exactly right. The point is to get the balance between how the Conservative Government under David Cameron blocked attempts to use appropriate trade remedy measures to defend our steel industry and the excessive use of them by the Americans. That is what the new TRA should do and that is why it needs to have the right balance of membership.

The message from the evidence given by the witnesses last week was loud and clear: stakeholders want representation on the TRA. They want their voices to be heard and their concerns taken into account, and they want that guaranteed in statute, not through ad hoc discussions with the Government. George Peretz QC told us that the composition of the TRA

“ought to be balanced by statute and that it ought to reflect a variety of different perspectives.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 55, Q105.]

We also heard from James Ashton-Bell of the CBI, that:

“In anything where you are making choices about trade and how it will impact the wider economy, you should have a wide and balanced group of people advising Government, or an independent authority, about how to make those choices.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 25, Q54.]

Chris Southworth of the International Chamber of Commerce concurred, saying that

“the representation is a critical point. An independent body, yes, but there must be representation within that independent body to represent all the important voices”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 25, Q54.]

That responds to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington.

If the Minister will not listen to me, will he at least listen to business associations, industry representatives, trade unions, academics, QCs and civil society? They are all coming out against how he and his Department are going about this. I urge Members on all sides to support our three amendments, but if the inevitable happens and the Minister leads them into voting us down, I look forward to him bringing forward his alternatives later in proceedings.

[Hannah Bardell]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies. It has been a fascinating debate. I want to say at the outset that we absolutely support our colleagues in the Labour party in their amendments, but have also tabled amendments 39, 38, 40 and 41, which I will speak to.

The legislation needs to be strengthened. Amnesty’s response was interesting. It said that an independent body with appropriate expertise should be established with a remit to conduct or commission assessment impacts of future free trade agreements on human rights, equality and the environment in the UK and of trading partners. This could be the proposed Trade Remedies Authority if it were given the resources, remit and powers.

On powers, it is important to remember that we are 20 years on from devolution. Devolution delivered huge changes across the nations of the UK. I can understand that many in England perhaps feel somewhat left behind, because we have moved on in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I have some sympathy with that but the point of the amendments is respecting devolution, and recognising the nations of the UK and the relationship that they have developed directly with the EU, and the importance of trade.

The Scottish Parliament was established to be accountable and answerable to the people of Scotland, to be open and encourage participation, to be accessible and to involve all the people of Scotland in its decisions as much as possible, and to have power sharing. That is an important point: power should be shared among the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland.

On the decisions about where the Trade Remedies Authority is physically located and about whether it will have non-exec members, decisions about the businesses and the people of each of the nations of the UK are best made as close to those people as possible. We understand that the functions of the Trade Remedies Authority will be reserved and it will undertake trade remedies investigations across the UK, but it is important that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers have a role in the Trade Remedies Authority.

Amendment 39 requires the Secretary of State to secure the consent of each of the devolved nations before appointing a chair to the Trade Remedies Authority. We feel it is only fair that we have a say in that matter. It is common practice for interview panels to be made up of people from a range of disciplines. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said that there will be a range of people, but I am sure he will have sympathy with my view that, although the west midlands is a very important part of the UK, it is not a country in the way that Scotland is. Since 2007, Scottish exports to the EU have grown by more than 25%. The EU market is eight times larger than the UK’s alone. Scotland exported £12.3 billion-worth of exports to the EU in 2015, and that figure is growing, so the EU is a hugely important market for us. It stands to reason that Wales and Northern Ireland must have a fair and proper say in who is appointed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That decision is at my discretion. It may actually end up being at the discretion of one of my fellow Chairs, and I do not want to commit them to anything, but I certainly hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

[Hannah Bardell]

I feel that it is important to make these broader points, because they are germane to the issue and to the amendments.

For us, the bottom line is ensuring that the devolved nations and the devolution settlements that were agreed on a cross-party basis are respected. That is absolutely at the heart of these amendments. I hope that we are able to get support for them, cross-party—and certainly from our Labour colleagues.

[Greg Hands]

May I start by correcting an inadvertent error I made earlier? I mentioned an agreement that was signed by the Secretary of State for International Trade with South Africa and SADC in August or September. It was actually earlier than that. It was signed in July by Lord Price. I know that the hon. Member for Brent North takes an interest in South Africa, so I will quote briefly from what was said:

“The Southern African Customs Union…has welcomed the UK’s intention to prevent disruption of trade relations with other countries as it leaves the European Union”.

I think that clears up where we are with South Africa.

Let me start by stressing that the Government recognise the important role that Parliament, industry stakeholders and the devolved Administrations play in building the UK’s future independent trade policy. We look forward to working with all those groups and organisations on the establishment and operation of the Trade Remedies Authority to ensure that their views and interests are taken into account where appropriate. However, these amendments are not appropriate to the creation of that new function.

Decisions on trade remedies cases can have profound effects on markets, so we need to create an independent and objective investigation process in which businesses and consumers have full confidence. That is why we are setting up the Trade Remedies Authority as an arm’s length body with the appropriate degree of separation from the Department for International Trade. The hon. Member for Sefton Central said that trade remedies are inevitably political. That is precisely why we are ensuring that investigation and evidence-gathering must be done independently.

Trade Bill (Seventh sitting)

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I call Hannah Bardell, who is not in her place—[Interruption]—unless she is!

Schedule 4

The Trade Remedies Authority

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 42, page 18, line 39, at end insert

“and to each devolved authority”.

This amendment would require the TRA to send its annual report to each devolved authority.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 43, page 18, line 40, after “Parliament” insert

“and shall supply copies to—

(a) the Scottish Parliament,

(b) the Welsh Assembly, and

(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to supply copies of the annual report to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Amendment 24, page 18, line 40, at end insert

“no later than 1 August of the calendar year in which the last day of the financial year covered by the report falls”.

This would ensure that the Secretary of State must lay the annual report of the Trade Remedies Authority before Parliament within a reasonable time frame.

Amendment 25, page 18, line 40, at end insert—

“Recommendation reports

31A (1) The TRA must prepare a report on each of the individual recommendations it makes to the Secretary of State in connection with the conduct of an international trade dispute.

(2) The report must accompany the recommendation submitted to the Secretary of State.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable, and not later than five days from the time it is submitted to the Secretary of State by the TRA.”

This would ensures that Parliament is kept informed, in a timely fashion, of the individual recommendations made by the Trade Remedies Authority to the Secretary of State in connection with cases of dumping, foreign subsidies and import increases causing injury to UK producers.

[Hannah Bardell]

I apologise for my lateness, Ms Ryan. I will be brief, because I know that time is of the essence. Amendments 42 and 43 are fairly straightforward, and seem to me to be a sensible and rational approach. Amendment 42 would require the Trade Remedies Authority to send an annual report to each of the devolved authorities; it is vital that we have those reports. Similarly, amendment 43 would require the Secretary of State to supply copies of the annual report to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. In doing so, I hope that Ministers will also consider appearing, as they already do, before their Committees, particularly in relation to trade remedies. I cannot imagine why there would be opposition to that; it seems like an entirely sensible approach. I hope that the amendments will command support across the Committee.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I will speak to amendments 24 and 25, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. As the explanatory statement makes clear, the amendments would ensure that our Parliament is kept informed in a timely fashion about the work of the Trade Remedies Authority.

Parliament should be able to scrutinise the work of the TRA to ensure that it is working in the best interests of the UK economy and UK producers. Such requirements are nothing new in the realm of trade remedies. At European Union level, the Commission is obliged to report to the European Parliament and to give MEPs statistics on the cases opened and the number of measures adopted. Members of this Parliament should be given the same information from our TRA once it is up and running, so that they can scrutinise its work. MPs should be able to see how many cases have been initiated and measures adopted and so judge whether the TRA is taking measures to defend our industries or mostly putting consumer interests first at the expense of British producers, jobs and the regions.

Tom Reynolds of the British Ceramic Confederation pointed out that he would be more comfortable if there were a more rigorous approach for parliamentarians to get involved in the setting of the rules for the system. Just as in the rest of the Bill, the Government propose nothing in the schedule about parliamentary oversight or scrutiny of the TRA. Yet again, they want to make decisions that will have profound impacts on key sectors of British industry, thousands of jobs and many regions, behind closed doors and without any scrutiny or accountability to Parliament. The Minister and his colleagues might talk the talk on returning sovereignty to this Parliament, but when it comes to it, they once again fail to respect the very principles of parliamentary democracy.

Giving parliamentarians oversight powers over the work of the TRA will ensure proper scrutiny and accountability. A weak trade remedies regime is of benefit to nobody in our country. If anybody thinks that having a weak regime will open up trade opportunities with international partners, they are mistaken. Partner countries will take advantage of that, and we will once again see the loss of jobs, as we did in the steel sector in 2015 and 2016. It is only right that this House gets to scrutinise the work of the TRA to make sure that it is doing its job properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I can be brief. The Government have made it clear that they seek to maintain the effects of the UK’s existing trade agreements. We make this commitment in relation to all parts of the United Kingdom, which means that we do not intend Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, or indeed England, to be disproportionately impacted by our transitioning of these agreements. As we have committed to seeking continuity in the effects of existing agreements, the impact of the transition should be neutral on all parts of the UK.

In relation to consultation with the devolved Administrations, as we have laid out frequently on Second Reading and in Committee, the Department for International Trade ensures that each of its Ministers, as well as directors and other senior officials, visit the devolved Administrations regularly and continually look for further opportunities to engage with a range of stakeholders across the UK.

[Hannah Bardell]

The Minister will forgive me if I find his comments somewhat ironic given what has been in the press over the last couple of days about impact assessments. Does it not seem reasonable that the Joint Ministerial Committee—which, as my hon. Friend says, is already in place—should have a sub-committee? He may think that as things stand there may not be an impact on the devolved nations, but I am sure that, like the rest of us, he does not have a crystal ball. Would it not make sense to put into legislation the ability for the devolved nations to have a sub-committee of the JMC to make it the best possible legislation that it can be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause calls for a process of review to examine the operation and impacts of all free trade agreements to which the Bill applies. Once again, let me make it clear that this applies to those comprehensive free trade agreements that are notifiable under GATT article XXIV and GATS article V. It does not apply to the many other trade agreements that fall under the undefined category of clause 2(2)(b).

We have already pressed for sustainability impact assessments to be conducted in advance of the start of negotiations towards those future UK free trade agreements that do not have a corresponding EU agreement. The new clause calls for there to be a parallel process of review after our free trade agreements have been in force for 10 years, and subsequent reviews every 10 years thereafter, which is essential to see how the agreements have worked and their effects. It will apply to all free trade agreements that fall within the scope of the Bill.

The call for regular reviews mirrors our earlier call for sustainability impact assessments in respect of the sectors to be covered, which would be a full disaggregation of the economic and social impacts of each free trade agreement, including the various regional impacts in different parts of the UK, as well as the impact on human rights, the environment, animal welfare and the interests of developing countries. Although the sustainability impact assessments to be carried out prior to new negotiations are ex ante, the reviews should represent a parallel process as far as possible ex post.

We have resisted the call from some quarters to require the reviews to take place every five years. Although we are keen to ensure regular monitoring of the impacts of any free trade agreements, we believe it will be more effective, given their reach and potential long-term consequences, to undertake fully comprehensive reviews less frequently, although the new clause provides for the option of holding earlier reviews when there is obvious social or economic harm as a result of a particular agreement.

The UK has an opportunity to establish best practice when it comes to the evaluation of international trade agreements. The EU produces annual reports on the workings of free trade agreements and can mandate a specific focus where there are particular concerns. For instance, the EU-Korea free trade agreement requires its annual monitoring reports to focus on sensitive sectors in addition to the standard implementation review. The EU also commissions more comprehensive external evaluations on a less regular basis—a major evaluation of the same EU-Korea free trade agreement is currently being conducted by two independent German institutes. It is examining a wide range of economic, social and environmental impacts of the agreement, including its impact on developing countries.

In addition, many countries have subjected their bilateral investment treaties to a thoroughgoing review in light of problems encountered as a result of the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement clauses in previous treaties. Those reviews have led a number of Governments to question their previous agreements and in some cases to introduce radical alterations to the investment protection regime. Bilateral investment treaties have typically been subject to fixed terms of duration, after which it is possible to terminate them unilaterally, with reduced notice.

The Government will appreciate the wisdom of setting up a longitudinal system so that we can learn from the experience of our free trade agreements. Setting up such a system at the moment when the UK once again reclaims responsibility for trade policy will allow us to build a comprehensive set of data through which to register what has worked best and what still needs to be improved.

[Hannah Bardell]

I commend the hon. Lady on an excellent speech and an excellent new clause. Given the mess that the Government have got themselves in over impact assessments—it is making headline news around the world and we are becoming an international embarrassment as a result—does she agree that putting it in legislation that Governments of whatever colour must make proper impact assessments relating to whatever trade deals they have now or in future is absolutely vital?