Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Contrary to international law, three Iranian vessels attempted to impede the passage of a commercial vessel, British Heritage, through the Strait of Hormuz. HMS Montrose was forced to position herself between the Iranian vessels and British Heritage and to issue verbal warnings, which caused the vessels to turn away. Our thanks go to the crew of HMS Montrose and to all those who protect the safety of vital international maritime traffic. It is our duty as a Parliament to ensure that all those forces are adequately resourced.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Last month, the Department released the worst foreign direct investment statistics in five years. New projects were down 14%, new jobs were down 24%, and investment to safeguard existing jobs was down 54%. I know that the Secretary of State will want to explain the reasons for this to the House, but will he also tell us whether he still thinks he was right to announce that, in the event of a no deal, he would unilaterally drop more than 80% of our tariffs to zero for a period? I ask this because Canada has said that it will not now conclude a roll-over agreement conceding preferences to the UK because the Secretary of State is offering market access for free. In June, he boasted to the Select Committee that the roll-over was 99% there. Now, it is 100% not there. Was he right, or is Canada?

Export Licences: High Court Judgment

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. This week, the House marked in debate the 70th anniversary of the Geneva convention and the 20th anniversary of the United Nation’s Security Council first putting on its agenda the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The irony of today’s judgment by the Court of Appeal is that the United Kingdom is the penholder at the Security Council for that mandate. We are supposed to be guardians of international humanitarian law, not the people found in breach of it.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling is a damning indictment of the Government’s handling of export licences to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It finds that their handling has not been lawful. The Court found that the Government

“made no concluded assessments of whether the Saudi-led coalition had committed violations of international humanitarian law in the past, during the Yemen conflict, and made no attempt to do so”.

Does the Secretary of State accept that this constitutes a clear breach of the Government’s legal obligations to assess an export destination country’s respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and that under criterion 2c of the licensing criteria the Government should have carried out such an assessment and denied licences if there was

“a clear risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law”?

The Secretary of State has tried to excuse himself by pleading that this judgment is not about whether the Government have made the right or wrong decision, but about whether the decision-making process was rational. Surely even he must understand that if the decision-making process was not rational, the Government could have had no confidence that it was correct and that it therefore follows that he could have had no confidence that there was no material risk of these exports being used contrary to international humanitarian law.

That the Government have failed to carry out such assessments is a matter of national shame. I am afraid that the Secretary of State’s suggestion that there has been anxious scrutiny of these decisions looks threadbare. I welcome his announcement that there will be a suspension of the granting of new licences to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, pending the Government’s appeal, but that is not enough. Given that the process itself is flawed, will he confirm whether the same process has been used for exports to Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, which are also involved in the Yemeni conflict? Will he confirm that he is also suspending all new licences to those countries?

The Opposition believe there should be an independent investigation into the Yemen conflict and that it is shameful that the Government should seek to appeal today’s judgment. We are also concerned that there should be no sudden upsurge in open licences to these countries as a way to bypass the suspension. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this will not be allowed?

During the legal proceedings in the case against the Government, it transpired that the Government had not been properly monitoring whether the Saudi-led coalition had been engaged in breaches of IHL and had refused to properly set out whether British exports or service personnel had been directly or indirectly involved in any breaches by the Saudi-led coalition, despite widespread evidence of airstrikes on non-military targets, double-tap bombing raids and the deaths of thousands of civilians. Can the Secretary of State tell the House categorically that there has been adequate monitoring of potential breaches of IHL such that no UK personnel could be implicated in any breach?

The Secretary of State is well aware that several other countries have suspended arms sales to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia over concerns about those breaches in Yemen, including our European counterparts Germany and Denmark. He has suggested that it is his view that the Government approach is in line with the EU common position. What assessment has he made of international reports into possible breaches and what discussions has he had with his counterparts in Germany and Denmark about the evidence upon which they have decided to suspend arms sales?

The Secretary of State, in his response to the claims brought forward by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, has stated that the Government monitor potential breaches in a number of ways, including a Ministry of Defence recording tool, extensive on-the-ground military and diplomatic staff, positive close relations with Saudi Arabian officials, and the findings of the 14 investigations by the Saudi-led coalition into whether they themselves had committed any such breaches. It subsequently transpired during proceedings that the Ministry of Defence tracker may not have been recording such data, so the Secretary of State’s review of potential breaches of international humanitarian law seems to be entirely determined by what his Saudi Arabian counterparts have advised him. At what stage did he first become aware that the Ministry of Defence tracker programme was not recording such breaches? Can he confirm whether his Department was aware that such breaches were not being reviewed or recorded?

The Court of Appeal has determined that the Secretary of State must retake the export licence decisions and must therefore conduct a conclusive review of past violations of international humanitarian law in advance. Can he confirm that he intends to adhere to the Court’s findings, and will he tell the House what steps he is taking to conduct such an investigation? Given the serious breach of this Government’s duty of care with regard to export licences, we believe that there are clear grounds for a thorough investigation into the Government’s handling of them, and that there must be a full parliamentary or public inquiry to find out how that was allowed to happen and which Ministers were responsible for those breaches.

I note that several times in his statement the Secretary of State was keen to finger the former Foreign Secretary as the one with the “specialist, diplomatic and military knowledge” whose advice he was obliged to take under criterion 2c of the consolidated criteria. The House may be surprised to learn of that official description of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). Can the Secretary of State explain, given that he has previously assured the House that he will

“personally lead on helping the defence and security industries to export and will be involved in the most significant global deals across all sectors”,

why he does not take full responsibility himself?

[Dr Fox]

The House has grown accustomed to the outraged tone of the hon. Gentleman, but it does not actually reflect the balanced tone of the judgment. He said in his questions that this country had been found in breach of international humanitarian law. I find that outrageous, coming from the official Opposition of this country, and I hope that he will retract it. I think the record will show that that is completely untrue. It is an outrageous slur on this country.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of valid and important questions, and I shall try to take them in turn as best I can. He asked about open licences. They are subject to the same scrutiny, and sometimes take between two and five months to pass, so they are not a means of bypassing the scrutiny set out in the consolidated criteria. I think that the House will be clear on that. As to how we look at existing licences, and at licences elsewhere, I have made it clear that we will review all licences in the light of the Court’s judgment. It is worth noting, however, that the Campaign Against Arms Trade did not seek an order to suspend licences, and that the Court has not ordered that in its judgment.

The hon. Gentleman asked about how the UK monitors international humanitarian law allegations. The Ministry of Defence monitors incidents of alleged IHL violations arising from airstrikes conducted by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen using all information available. This in turn is used to determine an overall view on the approach and attitude of the coalition. It informs the risk assessment made under the licensing criteria, where there is a clear risk that the items to be exported might be used in the commission of a serious violation. We consider a range of information from Government sources, foreign Governments, the media and international non-governmental organisations. We are now carefully considering the detail of the Court of Appeal judgment and its implications for this risk assessment and for decision making.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our discussions with the Germans. We of course have ongoing discussions with our European partners, but let me be clear that we are following the consolidated guidelines and the common EU position on this. I can tell him that there has been no breach in the duty of care in how the Government have approached this, and I make no allegations about any colleague, but I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has tried to drag personalities into this serious debate on such serious international issues. If there has been a breach of duty in this House, it is the breach of scrutiny by the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he does in this area. The Government’s export strategy is about breaking down barriers so that everyone can benefit from trade opportunities, but that includes understanding the distinct barriers faced by women. We will ensure that our independent policy is gender-responsive, and will actively seek to increase the role of women in trade and support female exporters in particular.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Today we remember with profound respect the importance of the multilateral alliance, and the sacrifices made 75 years ago today. Did the Secretary of State take the opportunity of the recent state visit involving those commemorations to express his dismay that UK companies might now fall foul of the Helms-Burton Act, which would subject British businesses and investors to unfair legal challenge in the United States simply because that country has a dispute with the people with whom our companies are doing business?

The extraterritorial jurisdiction that the US claims under the Act was declared unenforceable by the EU under a Council regulation which we have recently replicated in the UK, but does it not send a chill through the Secretary of State that by deciding to activate Title III, the US President is threatening companies based outside the US which are simply going about their legitimate business? Does that not make the Secretary of State question whether the great deal that President Trump says he is already discussing with the UK would be great for the UK, or just for the US?

[Dr Fox]

I agree that there are issues around the whole concept of extra-territorial rules on trade, which is why of course it is fundamental that we get a strengthening of the rules-based system at the WTO in Geneva. That will help us deal with some of those issues, but where the United Kingdom believes we have a unique role to play—for example in upholding the joint comprehensive plan of action—we will continue to do so, and we will resist any attempts to force UK trading entities to behave in a way that we do not believe is legal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 25th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend, in his usual way, makes an excellent point. It is not just the fact that we have those very important constituent parts of the United Kingdom to celebrate—we also celebrate our commonality and our unity as expressed through the Union.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The world was shocked by the two crashes of Boeing 737 Max 8s that saw the tragic loss of 346 lives. That is, of course, a matter for the European Aviation Safety Agency to investigate, but it is for the Secretary of State to investigate whether the export capacity of Airbus was unfairly affected by Boeing’s failure to be transparent about the pitch instability of the aircraft, or to provide specific safety training on the MCAS system, which was supposed to counter that instability. He will know that in one 12-month period the concealment of those issues helped Boeing to increase its sales against the Airbus A320neo aircraft by 768 planes, while Airbus sales dropped by 748 in the same period. What support, if any, does his Department currently provide to Boeing? Does he consider that its ethical failure has had an adverse impact on Airbus’s sales? What discussions has he had about Boeing with the Directorate-General for Competition and the Directorate-General for Trade in the European Union to protect Airbus’s export capacity from unfair and potentially illegal practices by its competitors?

[Dr Fox]

Let me associate myself immediately with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments about the loss of lives as a result of the tragic crashes of the 737 Max aircraft. Safety issues are, of course, the responsibility of the Department for Transport but, in the context of international competition, as he is well aware, there have been two recent cases at the World Trade Organisation relating to Washington’s state subsidies for Boeing and European subsidies for Airbus. As far as I am concerned, the issues relating to Airbus have been solved. I think that we would all benefit from a clear set of international rules on aircraft subsidy so that we could be assured that there is a genuine international level playing field, not least because of the rise of the Chinese aircraft industry and its entry into the market.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As I have already said, the Government will ensure that all future trade agreements continue to protect the United Kingdom’s right to regulate public services. It could not be simpler. Any attempts to distort that basic message are political propaganda and they are untrue.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

One of our most distinguished former diplomats, the noble Lord Kerr, spoke last week, during the passage of the Trade Bill in another place, of the value of having a mandate as a negotiator. He said:

“Having negotiated against Americans, I know that it greatly strengthens their hand to be able to say, ‘Here is the proof that I cannot give you what you want, because Congress would turn it down’.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2019; Vol. 796, c. 671.]

Recently the US trade representative published the negotiating mandate for a US-UK trade deal—no concern about commercial confidentiality here, just openly and transparently setting out all the objectives they have for penetrating UK markets, with American healthcare and agribusiness to the fore. In the same week, the Secretary of State published his Command Paper. It is against mandates. Indeed, the Government tried unsuccessfully to defeat Lord Kerr and others who supported Lord Balmacara’s amendment. What does the Secretary of State know about negotiations that Lord Kerr does not, and will the Government try to reverse their lordships’ decision when the Bill returns to the Commons?

[Dr Fox]

The Trade Bill was and is about trade continuity, including trade agreements and including the Trade Remedies Authority. It has been used, I am afraid, in the other place to hold debates on future trade agreements that will come in due course here. There is of course a difference between setting out negotiating objectives, which the United States did, and a mandate, which is how the negotiators actually go about it. It seems that the hon. Gentleman has not grasped that point yet.

Trade Remedy Measures: UK Interests

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement today. He is right of course that, as we transition, we will need to have our own trade remedies in place. In his response, he may play fast and loose with our opposition to the Trade Bill, but he will know that our opposition was principled on the basis that we disagreed with many of the measures contained therein. We do, none the less, need to have measures in place.

We are just five weeks away from leaving the UK and possibly operating our own trade remedies, yet the Trade Bill, which establishes the Trade Remedies Authority, is still stuck in the other place due to the Government’s refusal to set out a transparent and democratic approach to trade agreements. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance’s suggestion is correct that it would have been possible to maintain the existing EU remedies until they came up for review? Indeed, if he accepted my party’s proposal for a customs union, he would ensure the continuity of trade remedies and that EU safeguard measures would not apply to British exports.

However, the Secretary of State has proceeded, as he wants, to fast-track the UK into the sort of less regulated economy he has always favoured. Rather than presuming to maintain trade remedies and maintain the status quo, so eager is he to begin cutting tariffs and opening up UK markets to cheaper imports that the Government have decided to presume that all such measures will be terminated, unless a case is made to maintain them. Such measures will undoubtedly increase the volume of imports on UK markets at less than fair market cost. After all, that is why the trade remedy measures were imposed in the first instance, following lengthy investigations by the EU. Indeed, at a time when the Department has faced repeated criticism about Brexit preparedness and priorities, when the Secretary of State has failed to bring forward the Trade Bill, when he has failed to discuss the 40 trade agreements that he promised would be ready “one second after midnight” after Brexit, and when the Government have failed to present a workable Brexit deal, why did he choose to ignore the MTRA?

The Government have failed to produce coherent evidence for these policy decisions; nor have they carried out an impact assessment. Indeed, many will be concerned that today’s findings are little more than policy-based evidence to support the Secretary of State’s free trade quest.

The Government’s handling of Brexit has been absolutely chaotic, no more so than in the extraordinary approach taken to delivering the UK’s trade policy. Any claims that the Government are acting in the interests of British business in ensuring continuity of trade on existing terms completely fall apart in the face of the evidence. The Secretary of State is chasing trade agreements with his gold tier friends across the Anglosphere and prioritising efforts to liberalise UK markets as part of his free trade experiment. In carrying out this consultation, the Government have refused to consider evidence from trade unions and civil society groups, instead only accepting arguments presented by a producer or group of producers who collectively meet what originally was an unspecified volume of production and/or who had an unspecified market share in those goods.

The Government’s intended agenda is clear. While they have explicitly stated that only evidence submitted from producers may be considered in the determination of the continuation of an existing measure, they have welcomed the views of downstream producers and consumer interest groups. That further compounds the concerns of our producers that the Government’s primary objective is cheaper prices, no matter how that might decimate manufacturing in the country. If people lose their jobs, cheaper prices will be of scant consolation.

There have also been recent reports that the Secretary of State wishes unilaterally to reduce all tariffs to zero in the event of a no-deal Brexit—a move that has been met with alarm and shock by our producing industries and which I detailed extensively in our debate last Thursday. Unfortunately the Secretary of State has refused to confirm that he has abandoned that folly. On zero tariffs, there has been no comprehensive formal consultation, no comprehensive impact assessment and no prolonged transition proposed. Such a significant decision would have far-reaching consequences for the UK economy and would demand full parliamentary scrutiny.

This Government have long stood against the interests of our producers and the jobs they maintain in our heartlands—from the Potteries to the valleys. The UK Government have repeatedly blocked efforts by the European Union to reform trade defence measures and, through the establishment of the Trade Remedies Authority, have taken a substantially different approach from the existing EU regime. The EU has since modernised those measures, as the UK no longer participates in those discussions. That resulted just last month in the EU introducing a range of safeguard measures to apply to steel imported into the EU, taking into account social and environmental factors in determining distortion in production. UK steel exports to the EU are likely to be subject to the additional measures, which will undermine UK steel competitiveness in those markets. Indeed, the vast majority of UK steel exports are to the EU or to those countries with which the EU has a trade agreement. The Government’s trade policy priorities and failure properly to secure trade continuity arrangements jeopardise that.

The concerns of our producing industries are manifold. How will reviews of the maintained trade remedies be conducted? In determining the UK’s approach, will the Secretary of State accept the findings of any separate EU review? Will he accept evidence submitted by producers in respect of ongoing reviews or investigations by the EU as qualifying for automatic inclusion in any subsequent review or investigation to be carried out by the UK? What analysis has his Department carried out in respect of the impact of terminating trade remedy measures, and what assessment has it made of the unilateral reduction of trade tariffs to zero?

[Dr Fox]

We got there just before Brexit, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman did not say very much about trade remedies, so there is very little to respond to. In fact, it is a great example of “If you haven’t got anything to say, don’t say anything”. The Government’s policy is quite clearly correct and is supported by what he calls producers but I call employers. I know it was a slip of the tongue and that he did not mean that his policy is to leave the UK—I am sure that is the policy of the SNP.

The hon. Gentleman says that I want a less regulated economy. Yes, of course I want a less regulated economy, but it is against the rules of the WTO to impose regulations and trade remedies where there is no UK production or where we do not meet the threshold. Is he actually suggesting that we maintain remedies where there is no UK business and industry to protect, to the detriment of our consumers who will pay higher prices without protecting anything in the UK itself?

The hon. Gentleman talks as though cheaper prices are somehow a bad thing. I would love to see an improvement in the disposable income of people across all income ranges. If we can do that by removing tariffs—which are effectively taxes—by procedures such as this, we should be willing to do so. In fact, this is one of the real advantages of our ability to leave the European Union—to set our own tariffs.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Trade Bill. Report stage in the House of Lords will be on Monday 4 March. He does not seem to understand the consultation we have had. We have engaged widely with stakeholders. He said correctly that we have spoken to those who produce these products, but we have spoken to those who are involved further downstream and whose costs may be reduced by what we are doing. We have spoken to trade associations, in particular UK Steel and the British Ceramic Confederation. We have had bilaterals, roundtables and technical meetings. We have written to all MPs twice, which one would have thought covered a very wide range of consultation if MPs are doing what they should be doing in their constituencies.

On the European Union, if we go into an implementation period, all trade remedies will be rolled over and we will adopt any new European trade remedies during that period.

Future Free Trade Agreements

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman makes two distinct points. Of course, he is right to talk about the impact of Brexit on the automotive sector in the UK. All Members in this House should be concerned about that. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland quite rightly made was that Honda said, as the Secretary of State mentioned, that there was no imputation that this decision was made as a result of Brexit, but there was a clear indication that it was as a result of Japan now being able to import tariff-free to Europe—including the UK, but the whole 28 member states. At the point when this Government should have been making representations during the negotiations on that agreement, they were not doing so.

[Dr Fox]

The Labour party’s position is that it would be inside the customs union, where it would inherit the very agreements it says it does not like—it did not vote for CETA and it does not like the Japan economic partnership agreement. It would not only be bound by those agreements but would have no say in any future policy because it would be applied by the EU through the customs union.

[Barry Gardiner]

It is always the way with the Secretary of State: when he sees that a valid point has been made and that he is vulnerable to it, he tries to go on the attack. It does not work. It is a pathetic response when he knows and should, with some humility, accept that the proper impact assessments were never made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber just prior to the debate starting, but I raised a point of order with Mr Speaker—obviously, you were not here, Madam Deputy Speaker— to say that the fourth written statement due to be laid before the House today had not been made available prior to this debate. I thought that was a great shame. Mr Speaker expressed his view that, of course, these things sometimes happen inadvertently. If it was advertent, he deprecated it. But of course, there is a pattern here, and my hon. Friend is right to point to that pattern. I share her hope that we will not find next week that there are further documents that either would have been vital for today’s debate or are being produced at exactly the wrong point for Parliament to have the maximum opportunity to scrutinise what the Government are doing.

The British Ceramic Confederation letter continues:

“Some members thought if we are importing, say, a raw material, that was not manufactured or quarried in the UK a liberalisation might be acceptable. Our members are clear this should be an exception rather than a general rule and comprehensive consultation would be needed.”

Of course, the chief executive rightly also points out that most other sectors have not had the same level of discussion with officials that ceramics has had, and so are largely unprepared for the potential impact of a unilateral snap move to zero most favoured nation tariff rates. There has been no comprehensive formal consultation, no comprehensive impact assessment and no prolonged transition proposed. Such a significant decision would have far-reaching consequences for the UK economy and would demand full parliamentary scrutiny.

Consultation, impact assessments and parliamentary scrutiny—those are all the things their lordships are still waiting for before returning the Trade Bill to this House, and all the things this debate ought to have been about, rather than putative future agreements whose working groups have been mired in secrecy and which the Secretary of State sees as his vanity project of restoring the Anglosphere.

The letter continues:

“In a no deal Brexit, already highly damaging and disruptive for our sector, the shock of zero tariffs would be devastating, affecting businesses, jobs and communities across the country as well as affecting UK manufacturing more generally.”

Of course, it is not just the ceramics industry that is horrified by the Secretary of State’s proposals. The Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance, which is made up of eight national trade associations, as well as three trade unions, only yesterday put out an equally strong press release damning the folly of a wholesale reduction to zero tariffs, saying that

“the move could ruin the home market for many sectors. Increased imports would flood the market, jeopardising tens of thousands of jobs and fundamentally changing the British economy.”

Ian Cranshaw, head of international trade at the Chemical Industries Association, said:

“The idea of a new tariff regime is something which should be subject to proper consultation. With less than 40 days to Brexit, British manufacturers already dealing with Brexit uncertainties are now having to assess how their business might be impacted by an increase in non-EU competition should the government remove MFN tariffs on key chemical products.”

Finally, Jude Brimble, GMB national secretary, said:

“Zero tariffs in the event of a no-deal Brexit is a short-sighted move. While it may lower prices in the short term, it will ultimately put thousands of British manufacturing jobs at risk.”

[Dr Fox]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

In a moment. Jude Brimble continued:

“Manufacturers are often based in the heart of their communities and supporting many more indirect and supply chain jobs.

Zero tariffs could destroy the proud history of making and manufacturing”

in this country.

Is this really what the Secretary of State intends? I will happily give way to him now if he will rise to confirm that he has abandoned that folly.

[Dr Fox]

The need to produce a new tariff policy would be required only in a no-deal scenario. I voted for there to be a deal to avoid that—will the hon. Gentleman?

[Barry Gardiner]

I have two points. First, of course I will vote for a deal, but I will not vote for the Secretary of State’s bad deal. That is why we have put forward our own proposals for a good deal that would protect manufacturing in this country. Secondly, he says that new tariffs will be necessary only if there is no deal. Why then have he and his departmental officials been talking to industry about his proposals for zero tariffs? I will very happily give way if he will come back to the Dispatch Box and explain that. [Interruption.]

EU Trade Agreements: Replication

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade to make a statement on the progress he has made in replicating trade agreements between the United Kingdom and those countries with which the EU has a trade agreement.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)]

As a member of the EU, the UK currently participates in about 40 free trade agreements with more than 70 countries. In 2018, the trade agreements in force constituted about 11% of our trade. They cover a wide variety of relationships, including free trade agreements, economic partnership agreements with developing nations, association agreements that cover broader economic and political cooperation, and mutual recognition agreements.

The Government’s programme for providing continuity and stability for businesses, consumers and investors in our international agreements is of the utmost importance. We are committed to ensuring that those benefits are maintained, providing for a smooth transition as we leave the EU, but the House will be well aware that the best way to provide that continuity and stability is to ensure that we have a deal with the European Union so the UK remains covered by all those agreements during the implementation period.

We have already signed a number of agreements, including with Switzerland—the largest in terms of our trade flows, representing more than 20% of the value of all our roll-over agreements. We have also signed agreements with Chile and the Faroe Islands, and an economic partnership agreement with eastern and southern Africa. The texts, explanatory memorandums and parliamentary reports for those agreements have already been laid in the Libraries of both Houses.

As we leave the EU, we have no intention of making our developing country partners worse off, as the Opposition would have us do by abandoning EPAs. It is important for the prosperity of their people that we maintain our trading relationships so they have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. We have recently reached agreements with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and we intend to sign them shortly. Just today, we reached agreement on the UK-Pacific EPA. We have also signed mutual recognition agreements with Australia and New Zealand, and will be closing two with the United States soon. A number of negotiations are at an advanced stage. All international negotiations—indeed, any negotiations—tend to go down to the wire, and I would expect nothing different from these agreements. That is the way that countries do business.

To put the economic value of the agreements in perspective, the countries covered by 20 of the smallest agreements account for less than 0.8% of the UK’s total trade. For the countries with which we may not be able to sign a full agreement by exit day, it is responsible to ensure that we have contingencies in place should we end up, unfortunately, in a no-deal scenario. That is exactly what my Department, alongside the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, is doing. We will shortly be updating businesses and the House about the progress on these agreements, and will continue to inform the House as soon as further agreements are signed, in line with our established parliamentary procedures.

[Barry Gardiner]

Yesterday, the Department’s risk matrix for the so-called roll-over agreements was published in the media. Of the 40 agreements that the Secretary of State famously promised would be ready one second after midnight on exit day, precisely four have been signed. Nine are off track, 19 are significantly off track, four cannot be completed by March 2019 and two are not even being negotiated.

Throughout the passage of the Trade Bill, Members repeatedly said that they were concerned that it would not be possible to replicate the terms of those agreements fully, and that many countries would seek to renegotiate terms in their favour. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to write to me to set out for each country what objections or demands to concluding a new roll-over have been presented, what concessions he has offered in respect of preferential access to UK markets in order to overcome such obstacles, and what assessment he has made of the impact on trade flows with the UK of a failure to conclude a new deal.

Many in the business community feel that the Secretary of State has diverted too many of his Department’s resources to entirely new free trade agreements, and so keen has he been to grandstand with the new that he has ignored the fundamental grinding work of securing what we already have. So I ask the Secretary of State to write to set out: the number of full-time personnel engaged on securing entirely new agreements; the number engaged on securing the roll-overs; and whether he believes his Department has been adequately resourced to handle so many trade negotiations at once.

Recently, the Secretary of State suggested the unilateral liberalisation of tariffs in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Will he explain to the House how he thinks negotiations would go with the remaining roll-over countries once he had given up our key negotiating leverage by reducing all tariffs to zero? Most Members might think that by doing so we were the ones being rolled over. Will he categorically rule out such a proposal? As we speak, goods are being loaded on to vessels that will be arriving in our markets from overseas after 29 March. How does he intend to support business with these transactions, given that nobody knows what tariffs and non-tariff barriers they will face when they arrive at their destination port? Increasingly, the Department for International Trade looks as though it has inadequate resources, focused on the wrong priorities, set by incompetent Ministers.

[Dr Fox]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman gives us a rich menu of the things on which he is wrong. First, if we want to ensure that all our agreements are rolled over, the best way to do that is by reaching a deal with the European Union so that they will apply one minute after midnight. I voted for that continuity. Did the hon. Gentleman? Did his party? Secondly, he asks about the reasons why countries may not want to continue these things. I have had discussions with a number of Opposition politicians about this. Some countries have said that they did not like some of the human rights elements that were incorporated by the EU and they would like us to drop those in order to roll the agreements over. I am not inclined to do so, because the value we attach to human rights is an important part of who we are as a country. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in that, rather than diverting resources in my Department from roll-over agreements to future free trade agreements, I have done exactly the opposite, reducing the number working on potential future FTAs in order to give maximum resource for this. Finally, he was wrong as I did not advocate unilateral liberalisation of tariffs—that was something mentioned in a newspaper—and the Government will determine what their day one tariffs will be as a collective decision in the event of no deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend is right that trade is a reserved power, but we work with parliamentarians across the House through our regular briefings with MPs, which MPs from all parties attend, our international events programme, online services and the Board of Trade, which I established, to ensure that the benefits of trade are equally felt across all the parts of the United Kingdom.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Many British companies are currently part of trade disputes put forward by the EU at the World Trade Organisation. After 29 March they will be able to continue those disputes, utilising the evidence already submitted, but only if the Government accept a regional approach of 27 plus one countries, which is specifically allowed for under WTO rules. That would avoid the time and cost for businesses and for the taxpayer of having to resubmit evidence in a separate case. Why have the Government refused to adopt that simple solution? Why will they not support British business and ensure that trade disputes do not drag on for longer and at far greater cost than absolutely necessary?

[Dr Fox]

We will not want to see trade disputes drag on longer than necessary, and we will want to co-operate with our European partners in that regard. Of course, the best way to ensure that we have the highest level of co-operation on the disputes that are currently under way is to agree to the Prime Minister’s deal.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I will conclude on exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, because it is at the heart of the conundrum facing the House and the country. If he gives me time, I will get there.

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful for how the hon. Gentleman is setting out his arguments, but if he feels that he was ill informed when article 50 was triggered, why did he vote for it?

[Barry Gardiner]

The Secretary of State makes a bewildering point, because I did not talk about being ill informed about the triggering of article 50, but he makes his own point and perhaps he understands what he means.

Now that the Prime Minister has finally brought her deal back to the House of Commons, it is hardly surprising that Members on both sides do not believe it to be in the best interests of our country. I know that she is now reaching out to her rather unlikely new-found friends in Unite and the GMB, and even to Opposition Members, but colleagues will recognise that this is a paradigm of too little, too late. Workers’ rights and environmental standards and protections are a vital part of Labour’s concern about the future relationship. We cannot agree that the UK should be in a situation in which we might fall behind our EU counterparts. The principle of non-regression from current levels makes it almost impossible to take action against the loss of a specific right but, as the TUC has made clear, what is required is not vague assurances but the binding long-term guarantees that working people need. These are not, even now, being offered.

On 10 December, the Prime Minister called a halt to the first part of the debate. She acknowledged that the package of the withdrawal agreement and the future political framework, as it stood, would not gain the support of the House. She undertook to change it and to come back with legally binding assurances on the backstop after listening to Members’ objections. Indeed, the Secretary of State for International Trade went as far as to say:

“I think it is very difficult to support the deal if we don’t get changes to the backstop… I’m not even sure if the cabinet will agree for it to be put to the House of Commons.”

Well, here it is, and here he is, but the only thing that has changed is that the Prime Minister has lost yet more votes, and more of the confidence of Members and of the country. The letter from the EU that she has brought back is a long way from the significant and legally effective commitment she promised last month. It is a reiteration of the EU’s existing position. She has delayed proceedings in a futile bid to run down the clock but, once again, nothing has changed.

Before the intermission in our debate, when the Prime Minister was trying to press her Back Benchers to support her, she claimed repeatedly that there was no possibility of renegotiation, but then, when defeat seemed inevitable, she scrambled back to Europe in a vain attempt to do precisely that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 20th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his usual patriotic and optimistic tone. He is right that the country is in the middle of an export boom; our exports are at an all-time high. In the first six months of the year, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United Kingdom was second only to China in inward investment. It is truly a very positive picture, and we will be able to build on that, whatever our relationship with the European Union.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

On behalf of our Front Benchers, may I extend Christmas greetings, particularly to the Secretary of State and his team? Mr Speaker, in Prayers this morning, your chaplain referred to the perseverance of the wise men; I think we all need that.

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of potential trade partners being unwilling to conclude new roll-over agreements with the UK because of most favoured nation clauses in agreements that they have concluded with other countries, to which they are unwilling to give the same trade preferences as they do to the EU? I am thinking of countries such as Singapore, which might be unwilling to give other Trans-Pacific Partnership countries the same access to their telecoms market that the EU has enjoyed.

[Dr Fox]

We discuss matters with other countries on a case-by-case basis. None of them has said to us that they do not want to continue to have an agreement with the United Kingdom; that is entirely understandable, as we are the world’s fifth biggest economy. Where we are able to translate elements into a bilateral context, we are doing so. We are working through those agreements. We are making good progress, and I will report to the House as and when each of them is signed.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I congratulate not only Members on my side of the House today, but all those who have spoken in this debate, because what we have shown is testament to the passion and the force of argument and rationality that Members can present the House with at times such as this. I also want to pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for the fact that you have shown leadership by staying in the Chair for the entire proceedings of this debate.

The person I wish to start by quoting is not one of my own side, but the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire). He said:

“No one ever said it was going to be easy.”

Actually, on 20 July last year, the Secretary of State for International Trade informed the country that an agreement with the EU would be

“one of the easiest in human history.”

[The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)]

If we are going to have a sensible debate and if we are going to use quotes, they should be accurate and in context. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the point I was making was that the trade element—the part we have not yet negotiated with the European Union—should be simpler than most, because we would begin, unlike in most trade agreements, with regulatory alignment and legal alignment in trade.

[Barry Gardiner]

I know exactly what the Secretary of State said. In the following sentence, he said this would happen unless

“politics gets in the way.”

Clearly, politics has got in the way, but it is not the only thing. Yesterday, reality got in the way, with the release of the Attorney General’s written advice to Cabinet. The implications of this legal advice are that we could be locked into a position where the EU negotiates a new trade in goods agreement that might be beneficial for the EU but deeply disadvantageous to the UK. This could be a deal where we have no say in the negotiations but where the UK could be obliged to open up our markets, perhaps to the United States of America, without any reciprocal right of access for UK manufacturers into that US market. I know the Secretary of State will have reflected carefully on that outcome. In fact, earlier this year in his Bloomberg speech, he presaged just such a situation. He said:

“As rule takers, without any say in how the rules were made, we would be in a worse position than we are today. It would be a complete sell out of Britain’s national interests and a betrayal of the voters in the referendum.”

But in a few minutes, he will stand at that Dispatch Box and urge hon. Members from across the House to vote for it. I can only admire his flexibility.

So how did this mess come about? The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), excoriated the Government for their failure to prepare. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) focused on the rigidity of the Prime Minister’s red lines. Perhaps the most serious error, though, was, as my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) said, to try to exclude Parliament from the process. The Government tried to exclude us on the triggering of article 50, on the impact assessments, on the right to a meaningful vote on the deal and on the financial modelling, and of course we argued that Parliament had the right to see the full legal opinion prepared by the Attorney General. Their refusal was a blunder that resulted in an achievement unique in a thousand years of our history: a Government being held to be in contempt of their own Parliament—ironic, given that Brexit was supposed to be about the sovereignty of this Parliament.

It is hardly surprising, then, that now that the Prime Minister has finally brought her deal back to the House of Commons, it is a deal that Members on both sides believe is not in the best interests of the country. She used to say, “No deal is better than a bad deal”; now the motto seems to be, “Any deal is better than no deal.” In fact, the Prime Minister’s deal is not actually a single deal at all: it is a package, in which there is one deal with binding commitments by the UK on the things that the EU demanded that we settled before we leave—money, citizens’ rights and the Irish border—and another proposed deal, which contains only a wish list, with no binding commitments on the EU on all the things that the UK would like in terms of our future political, trading and security relationship. Both are packaged up with the transition period, during which the real final deal is supposed to be negotiated.

People have called it a blind Brexit, because we are unable to see what we will get before we leave the EU on 29 March, by which time we will have lost all further leverage. After President Macron’s comments, is there anyone present in the Chamber who thinks that it is mere coincidence that the final date to extend the transition period and avoid the backstop is exactly the same date as that for the ratification of an agreement on access to our waters and fisheries quota shares?

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) pointed out that, although the Government say that the technology to avoid a hard border does not currently exist, in a staggering act of faith, they believe that it will be possible to achieve that by December 2020, when the transition period comes to an end. If the future relationship is not agreed by that date, the UK is faced with a stark choice: pay billions of pounds to extend the transition, or enter into the trade purgatory of the backstop arrangement.

Forty years of harmonisation of standards and regulations has resulted in UK companies being deeply embedded in complex supply chains. In the past few months, I have visited factories in all sectors. I have been to the ceramics factories about which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke so powerfully when he told the House about the unions that he met and their fight. They are stressing that we must not have no deal, while not exactly being enamoured of the one that is on offer.

[Barry Gardiner]

The automotive sector—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady will understand that the purpose of summing up at the end of the day is to respond to all the comments, including hers, that have been made during the debate. That is what I will try to do.

I visited the automotive sector with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith). I spoke to the management, the unions and the workers. Their sector represents £18 billion-worth of exports to the EU. It has benefited enormously from our EU membership, and particularly from the customs union, which has allowed companies to streamline their supply chains and employ just-in-time systems.

I am not a pessimist about the future of our country. I do not say that the UK will be poorer if we accept the Prime Minister’s deal. But I do say, with the support of both the Treasury and the Bank of England, that it will be much poorer than we otherwise would be, by approximately 4% of GDP. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) spoke with clarity and passion about the differential impact that this would have on the poorest people and on the forgotten regions of our country, which need infrastructure investment.

Let us examine the potential upside: the new free trade agreement that the Secretary of State is so keen for us to do, particularly with our single largest bilateral trading partner, the United States. We have a trade surplus with the USA—a trade surplus that President Trump is determined to overturn. Last week, he suggested that a deal may now no longer be possible because of the way in which this deal proposes to align with the EU. President Trump made it clear that any trade agreement would involve aligning with American regulations and standards. Yes, of course, that means chlorine washed chicken, but it also means the US “Defect Levels Handbook”, which specifies the level of mice droppings or rat hairs that are permitted in our food—for example, 11 rodent hairs per 50 grams of cinnamon and 20 maggots per 100 grams of drained mushrooms. If anyone in this Chamber doubts it, they can read the handbook for themselves or they can see what is proposed by reading “Plan A+” launched by the original Brexit Secretary and by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees- Mogg) just recently. It proposes to remove parity-pay for posted workers; end limits on the hours that people can be asked to work; end the precautionary principle; say yes to pesticide residues and yes to hormone-disrupting chemicals in genetically modified organisms. Such regulatory divergence from the EU would substantially impact our ability to trade with our biggest, closest market. It would increase the risk profile—

[Dr Fox]

rose—

[Barry Gardiner]

Of course, I will give way to the Secretary of State.

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that because of trade asymmetries—that is the way in which trade flows are measured transatlantically —the United Kingdom believes that we have a trade surplus with the United States, but the way that the US measures trade means that the US already believes that it does have a trade surplus with the UK. That rather undermines his case.

[Barry Gardiner]

Not at all. The Secretary of State will have read what President Trump has said recently. He knows that the President, as a protectionist, wants to put America first, not the UK.

That regulatory divergence from the EU would substantially impact our ability to trade with our biggest and closest market. The Minister for Trade Policy recognised the same. He noted that, “If we come out of alignment with EU regulations in this area, then there is a penalty to be paid in terms of frictionless trade with Europe.” That comes from the Secretary of State’s own team.

Even assuming that new trade deals are possible without these complications, what would these new agreements contribute to our GDP? The Bank of England has quantified any benefit at less than half a per cent—just 0.2% of GDP growth. The Government’s own assessment says that a no-deal Brexit would result in a reduction of 9.3% of GDP. Most MPs are clear: a no-deal Brexit cannot be allowed to happen. None the less, the Prime Minister is presenting her agreement as a binary choice between her deal and no deal. She urges MPs to vote for a deal that they firmly believe is not in the country’s best interest by threatening that if they do not, the consequences of no deal would be even worse. That is not an argument; it is blackmail. Most importantly, it is a false choice.

Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor set out an agreement that respects the key reasons why many people voted to leave—namely money, borders and law—and also ensures that we continue to have frictionless trade that protects our manufacturing industry’s just-in-time supply chains and the integrity of the United Kingdom.

We are at a critical point in our history and business needs certainty and stability. Our children need an optimistic future. Our country is deeply divided. I started by quoting the Secretary of State and remarking how flexible he has been in acquiescing to this deal. I conclude my remarks, exhorting him to be yet more flexible still and to recall his own words, which were quoted in The Mail on Sunday on 16 September 2012. He said:

“I believe the best way forward is for Britain to renegotiate a new relationship with the European Union—one based on an economic partnership involving a customs union and a single market in goods and services.”

The Secretary of State may not like it, but it sounds an awful lot like Labour party policy to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

Once we get out of the realms of fairy tales and consider reality, we see that the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom is 4.1%—almost exactly half the level in the eurozone, which is 8.1%. Our exports are growing faster than in most other countries in Europe, with the exception of Germany, and investment in our infrastructure is at record levels.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Dr Fox]

Now that the hon. Gentleman wants to come into the debate, I welcome him.

[Barry Gardiner]

As, indeed, I twice welcomed the Secretary of State. Will he confirm whether he has seen Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs statistics on regional trade in goods for the third quarter that were published this morning? They show that all regions of the United Kingdom are importing more than they are exporting, and we therefore have a large balance of trade deficit.

[Dr Fox]

I hate to bring this to the hon. Gentleman’s attention—it will no doubt come as a shock—but we have had a trade deficit since the 1980s. In fact, one of the few times when we have not was in February this year, when the UK became a net exporter for the first time in some time. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be overlooking those facts because they do not suit his narrative.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

What proposals has the Secretary of State made to his counterparts ahead of this weekend’s G20 ministerial meeting to avert the threat by the President of the United States to pull the United States out of the World Trade Organisation, and to ensure that the WTO can continue to function despite America’s refusal to approve appointments to the WTO’s appellate body—or has he made no proposals?

[Dr Fox]

I have had conversations with a number of my trade colleagues from Japan, Mexico and Canada all ahead of the G20 meeting. That is a very good opportunity for us to recommit ourselves to the concept and practice of free and open trade and the rules-based system based on the WTO in Geneva. We should be pointing out that protectionism has never ended well, and that the benefits that we have introduced in terms of the elimination of poverty and the support for our global security agenda are based on free trade. It is also worth saying that the alternative to a rules-based system is a deals-based system, which would upset the balance of global trade. Incidentally, let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that he will find that the power to withdraw from the WTO is not a presidential power, but one that would require approval by Congress in law.

Trade Policy

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement. I have to say, when he said that he wanted to boost his relationships with old friends and new allies, I did wonder for a moment whether he was talking about the previous Foreign Secretary and the current Prime Minister, but it seemed not.

The Trade Bill completed its Committee stage more than six months ago. Since then, the Government have been too scared to bring it back for fear of what their Back Benchers might do to it, but tomorrow, this House will debate Report stage and Third Reading of the Trade Bill, so it was with a certain amount of disbelief that I saw that today of all days, the Secretary of State would be making a statement on “Delivering a transparent and inclusive UK trade policy”. I thought to myself, “This man’s having a laugh.” He is.

For months, since the first publication of this flawed piece of legislation last October, we have been saying that it fails to do what the Government led us to believe it would in the Gracious Speech at the state opening of Parliament—namely, to set out the legislative framework to deliver a transparent and inclusive UK trade policy. Business has been saying it; unions have been saying it; civil society has been saying it. Madam Deputy Speaker, did you ever hear of such a coalition? The International Chamber of Commerce, the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the EEF, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses all joined forces with the TUC, Unite the union, the Trade Justice Movement and even the Consumers’ Association, which publishes Which?, to tell the Government they needed to sort this out.

We tabled a series of amendments in Committee. The Government refused every one. So why this protestation, this deathbed Damascene conversion by the Secretary of State? It is a welcome confession, but as drafted the Bill does not provide what so many on the Government Benches told us was the point of leaving the EU. It does not give control over laws to this sovereign Parliament; it gives them to Ministers. What today in his statement has the Secretary of State done to change this? The words are warm. The detail is far from clear. Will he be accepting new clause 3 tomorrow? It sets out a proper scrutiny procedure for trade agreements. We tabled that amendment in Committee only to see it scorned. We welcome his statement that the Government will be bringing forward a proper consultation process in advance of future trade agreements. Does this mean he will be accepting our amendment 18 on consultation or our new clause 4 on respecting the rights of the devolved Administrations? The true penitent must not merely confess his sins; the true penitent must amend his ways. There is little in this statement that shows the Government are prepared to do so.

Modern trade agreements are so complex and extensive that they reach into nearly all aspects of government and policy, but they are not like domestic legislation, which can be repealed when it is no longer technically suitable or politically acceptable. Instead, they place legally binding obligations on Governments in perpetuity that cannot be simply amended or repealed yet those obligations can be agreed behind closed doors and in total secrecy by the Government’s negotiators alone. That is why it is incumbent upon Members of this House to ensure a rigorous and robust scrutiny framework for trade agreements.

Until now, the Government have rejected every single one of our amendments. It is welcome that, however late in the day, they have tabled amendments addressing at least some issues before tomorrow’s Third Reading, but they do not go far enough. They have now agreed with Labour that regulations should not be implemented under the negative procedure. They have also agreed with Labour that there could be substantive variation in the roll-over agreements compared with the corresponding EU agreements and have brought forward amendments that will require the Government to report on any such change. But of course as one hand gives, the other hand takes away, as they have also tabled an amendment that would allow them to ignore this, should they so choose. Reporting on a change is not the same as giving Parliament the power to amend it. I trust that, given the Secretary of State’s acknowledgement today of the Bill’s failings, he will support those amendments that seek to rectify the shortcomings tomorrow.

Finally, why are we having this statement today? It could and should have been delivered as part of the debate on the Bill tomorrow. Indeed, any concessions could have been brought forward as amendments at any stage since it had its Second Reading last November. Today’s statement can only have been brought forward in a bid to limit time for this afternoon’s critical debate on the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Bill and to stave off any opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to expose the ludicrous position this Government have now got themselves into by saying they will accept European Research Group amendments that directly contradict the Chequers agreement.

A group of Ministers and Back-Bench Members within and outside the Cabinet now appear to be deliberately steering the Brexit negotiations on to the rocks of a no deal, with all the damaging consequences for jobs and our economy of moving disruptively on to World Trade Organisation rules. I believe the Secretary of State is one such. The warm words and platitudes of this statement do not mask the cynical political game he is playing and make a mockery of the role of this House in undertaking proper and rigorous debate of some of the most important legislation to come before us in 50 years.

[Dr Fox]

As no questions were actually raised in the hon. Gentleman’s response to my statement, I am tempted simply to sit down again.

One of the reasons we give advance notice to Front Benchers is to try to ensure that they are at least be talking about the same issue as we are. However, I am afraid the shadow Secretary of State does not seem to understand that the Trade Bill, which we will debate tomorrow, specifically does not involve future free trade agreements; it merely involves continuity agreements. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that point, I am not sure what else in the Bill he will understand.

Today’s statement related to new free trade agreements. I gave the House a commitment that I would set out, before the summer recess, what our proposals would be, in the context of transparency and inclusivity, when it came to negotiating those new free trade agreements. The fact that we are making statements during the negotiations, and giving updates to the International Trade Committee, shows that we have acted in good faith. I am afraid that this afternoon we have simply had bluster and bunkum instead of reason and rationality, and if anyone was making a mockery of anything, it was a mockery of Front-Bench duties.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Inasmuch as I am able to discern what it is, which the events of this week make extremely difficult, the answer would have to be no—not least because, in regard to trade, the Opposition Front Bench has become a caricature of a loony left party in seeming to regard Justin Trudeau as a lackey of global corporatism.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Ministers have made much today about the vote on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement earlier this week. I am not quite sure what they do not understand about no deal with Canada being better than a bad deal; I thought that in other areas that was actually their party policy.

I want to focus on the damning report on carbon emissions released today by the Committee on Climate Change. The Conservative Committee Chair, Lord Deben, set out a stark demand:

“Act now, climate change will not pause while we consider our options.”

In response, will the Secretary of State explain why, on the latest figures, 99.4% of the support that UK Export Finance gives to the energy sector goes to fossil fuels? Will he tell the House what steps he is now taking to redress that imbalance, to promote and support renewable energy and respect the Equator Principles, which his Department signed up to, about sustainability in global trade last year?

[Dr Fox]

When I saw the hon. Gentleman stand up, my heart sank, given that this is only a 30-minute session.

We use UK Export Finance to promote a whole range of environmental and trading issues—in fact, I was in discussions with Equinor in Oslo last week about how we can use UK Export Finance to further the use and export of renewables.

EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman on two counts—first for showing us precisely what we are talking about. I know that he will have read the full EPA assessment, as I have done. I am equally grateful to him for raising the issue of the balance of trade surplus and deficit that we currently run. I am just about to come to that point, so I hope that he can hold off with his remarks.

It is perhaps most damning to quote from the impact assessment document itself, which states:

“Figures presented here reflect the long run impacts per annum and should be treated as a magnitude of change and not a forecast…It is important to note the results below are not based on the final EU-Japan EPA text and are therefore subject to a degree of uncertainty…Estimates are produced against a baseline of 2008 and reflect a world in which the Doha trade round and EU-Korea FTA are un-concluded.”

So there we have it. The baseline is 10 years out of date and fails to take account not only of the EU-South Korea FTA, which has been applied ever since July 2011 —seven years ago—but of the terms of the final agreement text that it is supposed to be assessing.

The European Scrutiny Committee was absolutely right to demand in its report

“a clear breakdown of how different UK sectors and stakeholders are expected to win or lose from the agreement.”

All the independent projections made of the EU-Japan deal calculated that the gains accruing to Japanese firms would be far higher than those seen by European businesses. All the forecasts spoke of major increases in Japanese exports, and the potential loss of jobs and businesses in Europe as a result. The Government assessment has at least picked up on these forecasts, recognising that the UK’s balance of trade with Japan will take a serious hit when this agreement comes into force. Voting to approve this motion will allow the Government to rush ahead and sign a deal that the Government’s own figures show will result in a decline in our trade balance with Japan of between £2.2 billion and £2.9 billion, so the hon. Member for Stone, who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee and asked for the impact assessment to be published, will now see that the effect of this deal is, in fact, to increase our problems in terms of our balance of payments with Japan.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)]

I will try again. Am I now to assume that the official position of the Labour party is not to ratify the Japan EPA?

[Barry Gardiner]

Note how keen the Secretary of State is to deflect the House from the fact that his own impact assessment says that, in signing the deal, this country will be between £2.2 billion and £2.8 billion worse off.

[Dr Fox]

Surely the House has a right to know the position of the official Opposition. Do they or do they not agree with this House ratifying the agreement that we are discussing and scrutinising today?

[Barry Gardiner]

Yes; and, ultimately, if the Secretary of State is patient and listens, it will become clear—

[Dr Fox]

This is rubbish.

[Barry Gardiner]

Goodness me! The Secretary of State is getting really exercised from a sedentary position; he is starting to be abusive. Let us be clear what has aggravated him so much. It is that I have read his impact assessment, and his own assessment of this deal says that this country will be £2.2 billion to £2.8 billion worse off.

Draft EU-Canada Trade Agreement Order

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

For the sake of clarity, is it the Opposition’s position that the United Kingdom should not ratify CETA?

[Barry Gardiner]

I will of course answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question—I will come to it later in my speech. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar), the Secretary of State will just have to be patient a little longer.

The CETA deal has been marred by controversy. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets across Europe in protest. The deal was largely conducted in secrecy and with minimal consultation. It threatens the essential ability of Governments to legislate in the public interest. That is why it is so essential that Parliament has finally been afforded the opportunity to debate the agreement on the Floor of the House.

I pay tribute to the work of the European Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is no longer in his place. In this respect, the Committee made repeated attempts over the past two years to ensure that Parliament was given just such a chance. The debate has been pending since the Committee granted a scrutiny waiver to the Secretary of State in October 2016.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

If we were out of the European Union, we would then be negotiating a new trade agreement with Canada and we would ensure that all—[Interruption.] Much that is in CETA is to be welcomed, as was outlined by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) who intervened on me earlier. Much of it is to be welcomed, but there are aspects of the trade agreement that the hon. Gentleman will recognise, and all of Europe recognises, as simply unacceptable.

Other Parliaments have, of course, had the opportunity to properly register their views on this agreement and perhaps this illustrates why the Secretary of State has been so concerned about allowing the House to have its say. In the Committee stage of the Trade Bill, I set out how a Labour Government would ensure full and proper consultation with key stakeholders—businesses, unions, civil society and the devolved Administrations—in advance of entering into negotiations on trade talks. My party believes that Parliament should have a vote to approve such mandates. That was why we tabled amendments to the Bill in respect of the same, but the Government voted down every single amendment we put forward.

[Dr Fox]

Are we then to assume that, for the purposes of consistency, Labour will table a negative motion under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—or CRAG—procedure?

[Barry Gardiner]

I will come on to our position in due course.

The European Commission hailed CETA, calling it

“the most ambitious trade agreement between countries ever undertaken.”

However, unlike other deals currently being progressed by the European Commission, it is a mixed agreement—trade and investment.

The investment provisions of CETA touch on matters of national competence and, as such, the agreement must be ratified at the national level and the regional level where appropriate. The European Commission and respective national Governments have sought to circumvent this process by provisionally applying CETA since 21 September last year, but the deal has not been ratified and is therefore not yet fully enforceable. To understand why, we need to look at the Wallonian Parliament in Belgium, which refused to ratify the agreement over concerns about investment aspects of it and, in particular, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, now known under this agreement as the investment court system. This is where process meets substance. Belgium has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice to seek a ruling on whether the investment court system is even compatible with EU law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

Indeed I do. We actually said so in our manifesto. We made that clear in the manifesto that both my hon. Friend and I stood on and with which we went to the voters of this country, and he was elected on it just as I was. I propose to stand by it; I am not sure if he does.

For all these reasons, the Opposition cannot support the Government’s motion.

[Dr Fox]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to raise this point of order, but in response—or non-response—to a series of interventions, the shadow Secretary of State promised the House that before he sat down he would make it clear whether he believed the Labour party would vote to ratify the agreement or lay a negative motion, which is procedurally very important under the CRAG procedure. Why did we not get an answer?

US Steel and Aluminium Tariffs

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for his telephone call yesterday afternoon. He is a very courteous man, but no amount of courtesy can hide the fact that he and his party have a record of failure when it comes to defending our steel industry.

When China began dumping its over-production into the European market back in 2015, it was the Secretary of State’s Government who opposed the European Union taking stronger defence measures and who precipitated a crisis for producers in the UK that led to the loss of companies such as SSI and of 1,700 jobs at Redcar. That was not some civil service mistake, but ministerial ideology. That ideology has been confirmed by the Government’s refusal to accept the amendments that Labour tabled to both the customs Bill and the Trade Bill precisely to strengthen the trade defence measures that we could take against such illegal action.

Last week, the Secretary of State’s initial response was to say that he did “not rule out” countervailing measures with our European partners. Did “not rule out” such measures? He should have been demanding them. On the departmental website it says begrudgingly that while we are members of the EU we

“must abide by EU trade decisions”.

That hardly sounds like a full-throated and co-ordinated position with our EU trade partners—and no wonder: when the EU recently voted to modernise the trade defence measures available to protect our industries, our Government were one of only two to vote against them. It is no use the Secretary of State saying that the Opposition voted against the Trade Bill and the customs Bill and that that would have left us with no Trade Remedies Authority. We voted against those Bills precisely because they were so weak and ineffective on this matter, and he knows it.

Some 34,000 UK jobs in our steel industry and 3,500 more in the aluminium industry are at risk because President Trump is imposing protectionist tariffs that the rest of the world believes are illegal under WTO rules. We saw him use the same protectionist policies to attack Bombardier in Northern Ireland. This time, he has based the policy on a fundamental lie. He is pretending that the tariffs fall under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 and are necessary for the national security of the United States. They are not. The lie is to try to avoid the perfectly correct response that the EU is now making in taking this as a dispute to the WTO, because the WTO is naturally reluctant to rule on what is and what is not member states’ national security.

All our steel producers want is a fair and level playing field on which to compete. They and we acknowledge that there is a real issue of global overcapacity, which brought our industry to crisis point three years ago and threatens to do so again now. That is why there are three issues on which we need absolute clarity from the Secretary of State. First, will the UK give the consent required to trigger the countervailing measures and enable them to come into effect on 20 June? The implication of the statement is that the Secretary of State will, but I ask him to leave no doubt. Secondly, the greatest threat to jobs is perhaps not directly from the loss of trade into the USA as a result of tariffs—the USA only accounts for 7% of our steel and 3% of our aluminium exports. The real danger is from the products diverted from other countries which can no longer export into the US being dumped here. When I first read the statement, I believed that the Secretary of State had made a commitment to agree to strong safeguarding measures to protect against such an influx surge. On careful reading, however, it appears that he may have given himself a get-out clause. He talks of supporting

“any safeguard measures required to deal with steel diversion”.

Can he confirm that he will support maximal measures to defend the immediate interests of our steel industry as well as any future trade defence measures that go beyond the lesser duty rule?

Thirdly, the Secretary of State mentioned that the EU filed a dispute at the World Trade Organisation on Friday. Strangely, he did not say that he welcomed that move. He knows that President Trump wishes to undermine the WTO and would prefer to do his trade deals on a bilateral basis using America’s economic might to obtain concessions. Can he confirm that, once outside of the EU, it would be his intention for the UK to continue with a WTO dispute against the US and that he is not minded to succumb to bully-boy tactics for fear of offending the President before a future trade agreement?

We do not want a trade war; most rational people believe that there are no winners in such a war. Only President Trump has said that he believes that he can win one. The UK and the EU must stand up to this behaviour and restore the integrity of the rules-based system. I therefore welcome the upcoming G7 summit and the opportunity that it provides the Prime Minister to press the case with President Trump. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, however diplomatically embarrassing it may be for Canada as the host country, the UK will insist that this matter be given a high priority on the formal agenda and not relegated to the sidelines? The Prime Minister must persuade other leaders to respond to the fundamental problem of global oversupply as well as the unjustified action of the United States. The 37,500 workers in the UK whose jobs depend on these industries will expect her not to fail them.

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right that there is an issue of global overcapacity and that, as I have said, that must be tackled on a multilateral basis because it cannot be effectively tackled on a bilateral basis with the use of tariffs. That will not be a successful way of dealing with it. What it has resulted in is a great deal of energy being spent on blue on blue activity, rather than on dealing with the issue at source. However, he is wrong about the support to the steel industry. As of 8 November 2017, the Government have, for example, paid more than £207 million in compensation to the steel sector as an energy-intensive manufacturer.

The hon. Gentleman is also wrong about the Opposition’s vote against the Trade Bill. They voted against not the provisions of a Trade Remedies Authority, but the setting up of a Trade Remedies Authority, which would have meant that we had no defence whatsoever. He is wrong about another matter, too. The American President was not involved in the Bombardier dispute. That was a commercial dispute brought by Boeing and nothing to do with the US Administration. However, the hon. Gentleman is right on the precedent of national security. The problem with using national security, as has been done in this case through the section 232 mechanism, is twofold: first, if the United States were successful, it would set a precedent for others to do the same and to use national security as a pretext for protectionism; and, secondly, it leads the WTO into the realms of having to determine what is, and what is not, acceptable as a definition of national security. That is something that the WTO has always shied away from.

When it comes to the countermeasures, we will still want to see what the measures themselves are. Specifically, we have been talking to the Irish Government about the issue of bourbon being on the list because of the potential implications for the Scotch whisky industry and the Irish whiskey industry. We will want to continue those discussions with the Commission.

I made it very clear that we will have whatever safeguards are required. I do welcome the WTO dispute. If we are talking about the need for an international rules-based system, it is the appropriate mechanism for us to show our displeasure and that is the correct route for us to go down. Once we have left the European Union, I hope that we will have no problems with a UK exemption.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The US President seems intent on undermining the World Trade Organisation’s multilateral rules-based system. He is delaying the settlement of disputes by vetoing the appointment of judges to the appellate body and is using national security as a cover, in this case, for naked protectionism against foreign steel and aluminium. Does the Secretary of State still think that Donald Trump is a man we can do business with?

[Dr Fox]

We do business with the United States Administration because the United States is our closest strategic partner. Where we disagree on issues such as steel, we make our voice very clear. We do not support the use of section 232 as a mechanism for dealing with the overproduction of steel. That actually hits the United States’ allies and not the designed target, which was China. Citing national security, particularly in Britain’s case, makes no sense at all given that some of the steel that we send to the United States goes into its military programmes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I pay tribute to all those people. We are seeing a big rise in our manufacturing order books, not least on the back of our strong export performance. In recent times, we have seen the biggest growth in consistent monthly manufacturing numbers for some 30 years. The figures produced by the Office for National Statistics suggest that our exports now represent 30.3% of our exported GDP—the second highest figure on record.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Given the Government Front-Bench team’s uncharacteristic failure to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) to the Opposition Front Bench, I know that you would want me to do so, Mr Speaker.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Food Standards Agency recently detained large quantities of out-of-date meat in a company called Norish Cold Storage? The meat is believed to have come from Ireland and South America. Given that Norish is the parent company of Town View Foods, one of the directors of which, Plunkett Matthews, was also a director of Freeza Meats, a company implicated in the Irish horsemeat scandal in 2013 and found guilty of meat-labelling fraud, will the Secretary of State urgently liaise with Ministers in the Republic of Ireland, the FSA here and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland to ensure the supply chain for this illegal meat is identified, that our sanitary and phytosanitary regulations are properly enforced and that those behind the illegal trade—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that if the meat was previously hot, it would certainly be freezing cold by now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As usual, I do not accept the premise of any part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. I do not believe that we will necessarily lose our share of the market. We want to maintain an open agreement with the European Union, and it will want to maintain an open agreement with us, because we are the fifth biggest economy in the world and a major trading partner for it. Of course, this morning’s report was anything but cataclysmic. In fact, its worst assessment was less than half the assessment that was given to us before the European referendum on what our loss of market share might be if there were no deal whatsoever.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the new arrival to the Government Front Bench. I also welcome yesterday’s trade statistics. The Secretary of State and I may disagree over how much that owes to the depreciation of sterling, but we both agree that the narrowing of the trade deficit is a very good thing.

With regard to the TPP, the Secretary of State says, “These are not mutually exclusive”, but he must account for regulatory alignment, which is part of the impact that joining the TPP would have. Indeed, the former permanent secretary at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy declared that joining the TPP would be “cloud cuckoo land”. Does the Secretary of State consider that that regulatory alignment to a trade agreement negotiated in secret to suit the economies of the Pacific Rim, which constitute under 8% of our export market, is a viable proposition for our country?

[Dr Fox]

I am in favour of trade liberalisation, whether it is bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral. If we can achieve openness in the global trading environment so that we can get global trading volumes up, that is of benefit not just to the United Kingdom but particularly to developing countries that should be able to trade their way out of poverty and not depend on aid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The steel industry has repeatedly complained that the Government are not prepared to impose penalties on exports from countries with significant market distortions. America is clear, having imposed penalties on China under section 232, and the EU is clear, having recently voted to pass new anti-dumping rules, but the Secretary of State has constantly ducked the issue and refused to say what his Department will do after we leave the EU. When will he give the steel industry a straight answer?

[Dr Fox]

What a cheek, in the very week that Labour voted against our ability to impose any penalties whatsoever in future. The steel industry and steelworkers in this country were betrayed this week by Labour Members, who would leave them as sitting ducks for dumping and subsidy, such is their love for their new hard-left, anti-trade ideology.

Trade Bill

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

My understanding is that HMRC was given extra resource in advance, before we reached this point. It seems strange that we do not already collect this data. If we want better-informed policy, we need better datasets. It is merely a sensible option for any Government to collect this data as widely as possible, so that we operate on the basis of better information.

Before I further explain the process, this is a good juncture to correct some of the misunderstandings that seem to have grown, deliberately or otherwise, around the Trade Bill. As I have explained, the Bill contains two powers that allow the Government to amend primary legislation: the power in clause 2 to implement the trade agreements that the UK adopts; and the power in clause 7 to allow HMRC to collect the export information that the hon. Lady has just mentioned. Both these powers are limited in scope and restricted in their use. Contrary to the belief of some in this House and beyond, seemingly including the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, this Bill does not legislate for powers that could be used when implementing new free trade agreements with countries with which the EU does not have a free trade agreement before exit day. An article in The Guardian—I do not avidly read it, but this was brought to my attention—written by him incorrectly asserted that the Government would only be obliged to present the text of new trade agreements under the convention of the Ponsonby rule. As I mentioned earlier, the scrutiny of new agreements requiring ratification is ensured by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the 2010 Act proceeds by negative resolution and it is not open to any debate, any scrutiny, any vote and may not even be amended? Therefore, the sort of scrutiny that most Members of this place would expect to take place for any new trade agreements will not occur in the way he has led the House to believe.

[Dr Fox]

This Bill is not about trade agreements; I can only explain it to the hon. Gentleman—I cannot understand it for him. This Bill is about continuity of existing agreements. In any case, the 2010 Act effectively gives the Commons the power to block ratification, notwithstanding the fact that we have already scrutinised these agreements in the past. He ought to know that, as the 2010 Act was passed by the Labour Government and he voted for it.

There is no attempt here to bypass parliamentary scrutiny or to obtain sweeping new authority for the Government over this country’s trading structures. Rather, the Government seek powers in clause 2 that we think necessary for us fully to implement in UK law non-tariff obligations of the transitioned existing EU-third country trade agreements that we adopt. Any tariff-related obligations in such transitioned agreements will be implemented using powers conferred by the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which had its Second Reading in this House yesterday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I will happily give way to my hon. Friend once I have answered our hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie).

As we will no longer be a signatory to the European treaties and no longer come under their territorial scope, we cannot formally be a member of the EU’s customs union. As the EU’s treaties currently stand, only EU member states, and territories attached to those states, are actually members of the customs union. However, it is possible for the UK to enter into a customs union with the EU after Brexit, whereby we choose to have a joined external tariff and no tariffs on trade between the EU and the UK. That would, in effect, mirror the current arrangements. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, like me, will have been interested to find that provision to do just that was incorporated in clause 31 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which we debated last night.

[Dr Fox]

Just for clarity, is the hon. Gentleman telling us that it is now the policy of the official Opposition to enter into a customs union?

[Barry Gardiner]

No, I am not telling the House that at all. I am happy to try to answer not only the letter of the Secretary of State’s question, but the spirit. Those on the Labour Front Bench have always tried to make it clear that we recognise the benefits of the single market to this country, and the benefits that traditionally the customs union has brought and that a customs union could bring. However, we are focused in the negotiations on achieving the benefits, rather than putting red lines around the structures, which is what the Government have done, and ruling those off the table.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Not all that many people bounce into my office, although they regularly bounce out of it. We are an incredibly optimistic Department and we look to the future with great confidence. Let me give some figures: the most recent time we advertised jobs in the Department, there were 1,698 applicants for the 92 jobs available. That suggests to me that there is a great deal of optimism, even in our civil service.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is indeed an optimist, and it is good to hear him so upbeat about all the trade opportunities that he thinks await us in the post-Brexit world. Perhaps he can explain why, when the Red Book shows trade in the world economy increasing year-on-year by 4% over the next five years, it shows the UK’s export growth decline from 3.4% next year to 1.2% in 2019, and then plummet to just 0.1% in each of the following three years. Is the Secretary of State perhaps an optimist who can find no rational grounds for his optimism?

[Dr Fox]

It is nice to see that “Project Fear” never dies. Rather than going on projections, let me tell the hon. Gentleman what our economy has actually done. He is right that global trade has been growing at around 3%, but UK exports have been up 13.1% in the past year—in goods they are up by more than 16%. That is the real performance of the UK economy. There is incredible slack in our ability to export further and we should be encouraging British exporters to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

I know my hon. Friend takes a strong interest in this, and he makes a valuable point. As the host of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting next April, the UK is committed to highlighting the value of, and increasing, intra-Commonwealth trade. Businesses will have an opportunity to meet in a three-day forum that will see a diverse range of sectors represented. This will help us promote our vision for global Britain and to celebrate and grow the vital intra-Commonwealth trade that he mentions.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

America’s Trade Secretary Wilbur Ross told the CBI this month that the essential precondition of a trade deal with the USA was to move our regulation standards and environmental protections away from the EU and closer to those of the Americans. Last week, Michel Barnier said that the essential precondition of a good trade deal with the EU was to keep our regulation standards and environmental protections close to the European model. The Government say their top priority is securing barrier-free trade with the EU, so does the Secretary of State accept that he can have American cake or European gateau, but he cannot have both?

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

Who writes your jokes?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As I have said, we first have to get our trading schedules agreed and then we have to agree free trade agreements with third countries, which involves the division of quotas. We are making good progress on that. We want a comprehensive agreement, because that is in the interests of all concerned. However, the Government are preparing contingencies should there be no agreement, which is the only responsible thing for a Government to do.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State knows full well that a technical rectification would disadvantage other members, which is why seven member states of the WTO have written to Azevêdo specifically setting out that that is unacceptable to them. On 6 July, the Secretary of State said that he was confident that a technical rectification of WTO schedules would be

“smooth and fully understood by our trading partners.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2017; Vol. 626, c. 1364.]

Well, it is not. What is he going to do about that? What assessment has he made of the delays and of the impact on our businesses that will result from that?

[Dr Fox]

I do not anticipate that that will happen. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand what the process is, or what a negotiation is. It is quite clear that our first offer is not the final thing that we expect to be accepted. For example, we have no agreement yet on what will happen with unused quotas or aggregate measures of support. Those issues will be dealt with during the negotiation—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman likes to multitask, but being able to speak and listen simultaneously is not among his abilities.

Export Licensing: High Court Judgment

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and early sight of it. I know that he and the whole House will agree that the war in Yemen is a humanitarian tragedy. Thousands of people, including women and children, have been its victims both directly and indirectly through the loss of life-saving infrastructures such as hospitals and water supplies. All of us should, and do, mourn that keenly.

The question for the High Court was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that there was no risk that British weapons might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law. Since the bombing of Yemen began in March 2015, the UK has licensed more than £3.3 billion of arms to the Saudi regime, including: £2.2 billion of ML10 licences, dealing with aircraft, helicopters and drones; £1.1 billion of ML4 licences, dealing with grenades, bombs, missiles and countermeasures; and £430,000-worth of ML6 licences, dealing with armoured vehicles and tanks.

The Secretary of State knows that indiscriminate use of air strikes, the destruction of a country’s means of food production and the targeting of civilians are all classed as war crimes under international humanitarian law. Does he recall that a United Nations panel of experts reported in January 2016 that Saudi Arabian forces had engaged in “widespread and systematic” targeting of civilians? Does he recall that, on 21 July last year, the Government corrected their previous declarations that they had no evidence of any violations, and that the Foreign Secretary stated in September last year that the Government’s new position was that they had been unable to make an assessment and that the Saudi authorities were best placed to make such an assessment? Does he accept that the Foreign Secretary was wrong to franchise out our obligation in this way, and that we, not the Saudis, have the duty to assess whether there is a risk that British arms sold to the Saudis might be used in contravention of international humanitarian law?

Does the Secretary of State recall that evidence revealed in the High Court in February this year showed that the civil servant at the head of export control had provided advice to a previous Secretary of State recommending that the UK suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia

“given the gaps in knowledge about Saudi operations”?

Can he explain to the House why that recommendation was overruled by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who sits alongside him?

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Committees on Arms Export Controls should be set up in this Parliament without delay so that export licensing for arms sales can come under the necessary parliamentary scrutiny?

Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s judgment did not seek to rule on whether the Government were correct in concluding that there was no clear risk of a serious breach of international humanitarian law, but rather on whether, in so concluding, they had reached a decision that could be considered rational, given the procedures they had adopted and the evidence they had considered? Does he further accept that if those procedures themselves were defective, or the evidence the Government considered was insufficient, misleading or even simply not comprehensive, it follows that the decision, however rational within its own parameters, could be deeply flawed, and this country might be at grave risk of violating our obligations in international humanitarian law?

The Government relied on material they brought forward only in closed hearing. That evidence could not be seen or heard by the claimant—the Campaign Against Arms Trade—or its lawyers, Leigh Day. As such, the court ruling that the Government’s decision was a rational one, given the procedures and evidence they considered, was based on secret evidence, which it was impossible to challenge. Does the Secretary of State accept that the court judgment makes specific reference to the substantial body of evidence presented in open session, which in fact suggests that a clear risk does exist that British arms might be used in violation of international humanitarian law? Will he agree to make the evidence that was available only in closed session available to Members of this House on Privy Council terms or, indeed, to the Intelligence and Security Committee?

Does the Secretary of State agree that we would all wish this country not only to adopt the highest ethical standards and controls but to be seen to adopt them, and that it would be helpful if he could now give his assurance to the House that it is his considered view that not only were the Government rational in adopting the view they did, given the procedures they followed and the evidence they considered, but that there is, to his certain knowledge, no risk whatever that UK arms might be used by Saudi Arabia in the Yemen war in any way that might constitute a violation of our obligations in international humanitarian law?

[Dr Fox]

May I say, first, that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Yemen is indeed a humanitarian disaster that is begging for a political solution, to enable us to carry out our diplomatic efforts and our humanitarian efforts? I doubt whether anyone in the House would disagree with that.

The hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in terms of what the court case was about. There were three grounds of challenge in court: first, failure to ask the correct questions and to make sufficient inquiries; secondly, failure to apply the suspension mechanism; and, thirdly, irrationally concluding that there was no clear risk under Criterion 2c. All these grounds have been dismissed by the court.

The hon. Gentleman makes the point about targeting. As a former Defence Secretary, I say to him that the MOD has gone to the nth degree to improve the ability of the Saudis to target more effectively, including through training by UK personnel. That is one of the biggest advances we have helped the Saudis to make in this.

The hon. Gentleman says that the UN and the NGOs had set out their own reservations about what had happened, but as the judgment made clear, they did not have sight of all the information that the judges were able to look at. He said there were gaps in the Government’s knowledge, but the court again made it clear that the Government had not only the ability to assess what the gaps in that knowledge might have been, but the appropriate means of redressing that. I remind him that the criteria we operate are part of the EU consolidated criteria—they are not UK Government unilateral criteria.

I take exception to the hon. Gentleman’s final point. I simply do not accept that if we have closed sessions it somehow makes the judgment less valid. I do not accept that we cannot have closed sessions that protect our national security or the personnel involved in our national security. Our sources need to be protected. I listened to the argument he makes but I simply cannot bring myself to accept it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

We have made it clear that, post Brexit, we will continue with duty-free access for the least-developed countries, but we need to see whether we can go further and reduce some of the burdens, particularly as we leave the customs union and are outside the common external tariff, by stopping the distortions on value added, which diminish the chance of investment in some of those developing countries.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

In his recent talks in the United States, did the Secretary of State discuss President Trump’s initiation of a section 232 investigation into the effect of steel imports on US national security? What concerns does the Secretary of State have about the impact such a protectionist ruling might have on the UK’s steel sector and on jobs in our steel industry due to lost exports and trade deflection of dumped goods on our market?

[Dr Fox]

We are all concerned about the overproduction of steel, largely coming from China, and what we have seen as possibly unacceptable subsidies into that sector, but it needs to be addressed in a way that is compliant with the WTO rules-based system. I raised with Secretary Ross and the trade representative, Mr Lighthizer, the impact that could have on the United Kingdom, and it is fair to say that our views landed. We now await the publication of the report, on which the President has up to 90 days to act.

Exiting the European Union and Global Trade

Debate between Liam Fox and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I want us to get a deal. Of course we want the best deal for this country, but the hon. Gentleman has to take on board the fact that since the referendum decision our country’s currency has depreciated by 12%. I trust that that is not something that he feels sanguine about.

[Dr Fox]

Some sectors will respond quickly to devaluation. For example, in food and drink there has been a 7.3% increase in our exports in this quarter. Why, in the light of the uncertainty the hon. Gentleman describes, does he think the figure for foreign direct investment in Britain has been at an all-time record in the past year?

[Barry Gardiner]

Let me be absolutely clear: we welcome foreign direct investment in this country—of course we do. We want people to be investing in our jobs, our economy and our future—