International Trade

Ranil Jayawardena Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2021 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from International Trade Oral Questions on 15 July 2021.

[Mr Jayawardena]

On the point the hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his question, there has been much talk about global Britain this week and trade is the route to prosperity, for Britain and her friends around the world. Although others may be content with offering only handouts, we are determined to give our friends a hand up. So having taken back control of our trade policy, I can confirm that we will be looking to go further than the EU and we will be setting out our plans and launching a consultation on this very soon.

[Official Report, 15 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 527.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena).

An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan).

The correct response should have been:

[Mr Jayawardena]

On the point the hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his question, there has been much talk about global Britain this week and trade is the route to prosperity, for Britain and her friends around the world. Although others may be content with offering only handouts, we are determined to give our friends a hand up. So having taken back control of our trade policy, I can confirm that we will be looking to go further than the EU and we will be setting out our plans and launching a consultation on the generalised system of preference very soon.[Official Report, 22 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 10MC.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Ranil Jayawardena Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

What recent progress she has made on negotiating new free trade agreements.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

I wish the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) a happy birthday. I hope he has had all the answers he was looking for today.

We now have trade deals with 68 countries around the world, plus the EU, covering trade worth £744 billion last year. Last week, I signed a trade deal with the European Economic Area-European Free Trade Association countries Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. It is one of the new generation of trade deals we are signing, which Britain has struck as an independent trading nation. It shows that Britain is a pioneering partner of choice when it comes to trade. They have gone further with us than with any other FTA partner, benefiting every corner of our country. From fish feed to cheese, sausages to strawberries, tariffs have been cut, backing jobs across Britain.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s go to Karl MᶜCartney. [Interruption.] Maybe not. So we will go to Sir David Amess.

[Sir David Amess [V]]

While I wholeheartedly congratulate the Government on the agreements negotiated so far, as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Maldives, I urge my hon. Friend, following our meeting, to negotiate something that is slightly different, an economic partnership agreement, with the Maldives Government, which would benefit not only our country but the core industry of sustainable tuna fishing in the Maldives in the light of COP26.

[Mr Jayawardena]

It was a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend recently to discuss trade policy regarding the Maldives. He will know that we have agreed trade deals covering 31 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries already, showing our belief in trade for development. I can confirm to him that I am keen to find a route to short circuit the process of agreeing more trade deals like these with Commonwealth friends around the world.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]]

I concur with the previous speaker on the Maldives.

Some seafood companies in Scotland have seen their costs of selling to the continent treble from 32p a kilo to about £1 a kilo. Also, UK exports to Ireland have fallen by 47.6%. All that illustrates the current damage Brexit is doing. We know from Government figures that, for every £490 lost to GDP, trade deals are not bringing in very much, unfortunately: an Australian trade deal makes up only £2 of that; a New Zealand trade deal £1; an America deal, if it happens, £20; and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership will bring in £3 to £8, depending on the way the cards fall. Has the DIT identified any other trade deal that might make up merely 0.1% of GDP, the odd £10 for every £490 of Brexit loss? Is there a figure for India yet? It has been a number of weeks since I asked the Minister this, but is there a GDP figure for a trade deal with India, if it happens?

[Mr Jayawardena]

The question has been asked and it has already been answered. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, in the EEA-EFTA trade deal, we have secured great benefits for Scottish businesses exporting to Norway. According to the figures I have seen, Orkney Scottish Island cheddar could see its duty reduced by two thirds. There will also be an important new opportunity for fish feed exporters to export tariff-free to Norway—it will see previously high tariffs on fish feed slashed to nought—providing a potential boost to the aquaculture industry in Scotland.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

What recent progress she has made on negotiations to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

What recent steps she has taken to ensure that the rights of workers are protected in future trade deals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

While the detail of free trade agreements is necessarily sensitive, we have committed in our public mandates to protecting our world-leading labour standards. For example, in our agreement in principle with Australia, a commitment was made to a chapter on labour that will lock in high domestic protections for our workers.

[Kate Osborne]

Colombia remains the deadliest place in the world to be a trade unionist, with 22 union activists murdered in the past year alone, according to the latest global rights index. Does the Minister now regret the agreement of a trade deal with Colombia that is so utterly toothless when it comes to the protection and enforcement of workers’ rights?

[Mr Jayawardena]

The hon. Lady will know that that was originally a deal negotiated by the EU. We provided continuity to businesses in this country and in Colombia to make sure that on our exit from the European Union, businesses could continue to trade. The truth is that some of the most vulnerable people will be affected by some of the knee-jerk policies suggested by the Labour party. In all our trade deals, we will uphold Britain’s high standards for businesses, workers and consumers, and we will continue to meet our obligations under the International Labour Organisation.

[Sir Mark Hendrick [V]]

The Minister has made perfectly clear the Government’s efforts to engage with Australia on the question of workers’ rights in the run-up to the trade agreement. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand already have decent workers’ rights. However, more than half—that is, 14 out of 24—of the countries where the Government are currently negotiating trade deals have very poor track records on labour rights, including Brazil, Malaysia and India. What pressure or influence will the Government bring to bear when negotiating a deal with those countries whose labour standards and rights are extremely poor, so that the trade can benefit UK workers and the workers of our trading partners too?

[Mr Jayawardena]

Again, the question seems to have been asked and answered already. The comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership has a comprehensive labour and workers’ rights chapter, and I would have thought that the people of Preston would welcome the fact that the CPTPP offers Britain access to two thirds of the world’s middle classes by 2030.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

What plans she has to enhance the UK’s trade deal with Israel following her recent visit to that country; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

What recent progress her Department has made on negotiating a free trade agreement with India.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

I was delighted to devise the enhanced trade partnership concept last year, and after much work across Government, the Prime Minister agreed the ETP with his counterpart on 4 May. Trade with India has averaged around £20 billion over recent years, and with its population bigger than those of the EU and US combined, the scope for growth is great, so I am looking forward to discussing our future trade deal with my new counterpart very soon.

[Andy Carter]

I warmly welcome the work the Minister is doing to secure a trade agreement with the world’s fastest growing economy. Does he agree that a trade deal with India will open the door for British goods—whisky from Scotland, fine wines from the vineyards of south Wales and handcrafted gin from Warrington, the best in the world?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I am in absolute agreement with my hon. Friend and I must make a visit to Warrington to sample some of this superb gin. India is projected to be the world’s second largest economy by 2037, so the opportunities for British businesses, from financial services to pharmaceuticals, form food and drink to film and music, are huge. This people’s Government are determined to make sure that every corner of our country benefits from international trade, securing growth and creating jobs.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

What recent discussions she has had with UK trade partners on inserting clauses on human rights into future trade deals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

The United Kingdom has long promoted her values globally. Although our approach to agreements will vary between partners, our strong economic relationships not only allow us to have open discussions on a range of issues, including rights and responsibilities, but secure jobs across our country, including in Hampshire.

[Stephen Morgan]

Successive UK Governments have believed in the principle that new trade treaties should contain essential human rights clauses. That makes the whole of the treaty conditional on the commitments relating to human rights. Will the Minister confirm whether that principle remains under his Government or whether it has disappeared, along with the commitment to a 0.7% international aid target?

[Mr Jayawardena]

We promote international objectives, including rights, through a mixture of approaches. On the point the hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his question, there has been much talk about global Britain this week and trade is the route to prosperity, for Britain and her friends around the world. Although others may be content with offering only handouts, we are determined to give our friends a hand up. So having taken back control of our trade policy, I can confirm that we will be looking to go further than the EU and we will be setting out our plans and launching a consultation on this very soon.[Official Report, 19 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 4MC.]

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

What assessment she has made of the potential effect of tariff-free trade of agricultural goods between the UK and Australia on UK farmers and crofters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) [V]]

Mr Speaker, I am delighted to be joining you from the 7th global forum for combating antisemitism here in Israel. With that in mind, as a newly independent sovereign trading nation, we have a number of trading opportunitieseb;normal;j ahead of us, including with countries such as Israel, with which we already have a £5 billion continuity trade relationship. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm what progress has been made on an advanced high-tech free trade agreement with Israel, and what help can she offer the likes of the Northern Health Science Alliance in conjunction with Israel?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

The Secretary of State had a successful visit to Israel herself in the last week of June, and she had productive discussions with her Israeli counterpart, focused on ambitions for upgrading our current trade relationship. As my hon. Friend suggests, I am very keen personally to strengthen our £5 billion trade relationship even further, and I look forward to taking these discussions forward to create further opportunities for British businesses in tech and beyond.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]]

Following the recent investor-state dispute settlement challenge from Canadian fossil fuel company TC Energy to President Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone tar sands pipeline, seeking an unprecedented $15 billion, what responses has the Secretary of State received on the issue of ISDS in the recent consultation on UK-Canada trading arrangements, and will she commit to dropping ISDS in the UK-Canada trade deal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jayawardena]

My Department continues to defend the interests of British industries in all parts of the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State is currently in the United States building on the historic arrangement that we secured in the Airbus-Boeing dispute, ensuring that the British aerospace sector can take off again after covid-19. Confidence in our fantastic aerospace manufacturing capability has never been at such heights. The United Airlines order of 70 A321neo aircraft last month will feature wonderful Welsh-made wings, and I look forward to further success in the future.

[Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s ambitious strategy for growing exports needs to include more agricultural councils in our embassies, a UK export council to help co-ordinate that strategy, and better promotion and marketing of brand Britain abroad so that we can ensure that farming and food companies in Eddisbury and right across the country can embrace the undoubted benefits and opportunities that UK free trade deals can deliver?

Free Trade Agreement: Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway

Ranil Jayawardena Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

Today, Norway’s Trade Minister Iselin Nybø, Iceland’s Foreign Minister Gudlaugur Thór Thórdarson, Liechtenstein’s Foreign Minister Dominique Hasler, and I are signing the United Kingdom-Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in London. This is another trade deal that the United Kingdom has struck as an independent trading nation, in which our partners have gone further and faster than they have with anyone else in a number of areas, demonstrating what is possible between trusted trading partners.

It is the first time these three European countries have included dedicated chapters on small businesses and digital trade in any trade deal, including some of the most liberalising and modern digital trade provisions in the world, which simplify customs procedures, cutting red tape and making it easier than ever for our businesses to export across borders. Electronic documents, contracts and signatures will result in less paperwork, saving British firms time and money. Their offer to the United Kingdom on services and investment goes beyond what they have offered other FTA partners to date. Innovative FinTech firms will be able to provide financial services into Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, without having to provide that service elsewhere first, helping the United Kingdom to maintain its status as a financial services hub.

The agreement contains robust commitments on trade and sustainable development, demonstrating our shared global leadership on pressing issues such as climate change and protects our “right to regulate”, supporting us in meeting our ambitious domestic climate targets, including net zero for the United Kingdom.

Building on our current goods agreement, this agreement will cut more Norwegian tariffs on high-quality British food and farm products and could help support British fish processing industries from Grimsby to Grampian with further reductions on our tariffs on certain white fish, shrimps and prawns. The agreement could help support businesses in every corner of our country, helping to grow a trading relationship already worth £21.6 billion in 2020.¹

This deal will deliver more opportunities for key British sectors especially those providing financial, legal, and other professional services. It will allow businesses in all sectors to send their staff on business visits or to provide services contracts to these countries, as well as the ability to transfer them for longer term projects. It means those with professional qualifications will have clear routes for the recognition of their qualifications for regulated professions. In addition, the agreement opens up new opportunities for British businesses to bid for a wider range of Government contracts in these countries.

HM Government is committed to transparency and the effective scrutiny of our trade negotiations. Following today’s signature of the FTA, I can announce that the Department for International Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will be formally presenting the signed treaty text and related documents to Parliament before the summer recess for scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance (CRaG) Act procedure. Laying ahead of summer recess ensures that the House has the maximum amount of time to scrutinise the detail of our trade deal.

Alongside the treaty text, we will lay an explanatory memorandum. An impact assessment of our trade deal, and a parliamentary report providing an overview of the deal, will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses at the same time. All of the documents will be published on gov.uk in parallel.

[HCWS163]

¹ ONS, UK total trade: all countries, non-seasonally adjusted: October to December 2020

Protecting Britain’s Steel Industry

Ranil Jayawardena Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

New roads, track renewals, flood defences, Hinkley Point—the Government are unleashing the potential of our whole country by backing British industry and boosting Britain’s infrastructure. Steel first came to the fore as Britain led the global industrial revolution, and it is today’s infrastructure revolution, underpinned by 7 million tons of steel in the next 10 years here alone, that will see Britain lead the world into the future. Steel remains one of the pillars of British industry and one of the commanding heights of the economy to this people’s Government, and we are committed to championing free and fair trade to the benefit of jobs in every corner of our country.

The Conservatives are moving our great country on, instead of going backwards with the Labour party. We have secured trade agreements with 68 countries around the world, plus the EU, covering trade worth £744 billion last year, and we are just getting started. We are negotiating an agreement with New Zealand, we are working to join the trans-Pacific partnership and we have announced our intent to begin negotiations with India, too. This will put Britain at the heart of a new, dynamic, global trading network, as a hub for investment and exports, securing prosperity for British families and generations to come. That is important because we know that our job is to serve the British people, whether they drive a white van or a hatchback car, and whatever flag they fly from their home.

We fully agree that our steel producers and the livelihoods that they support in every part of our kingdom should be protected from unfair competition. More than that, we want them to be able to export to friends around the world.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

Under the last Labour Government, steel production in this country fell by almost 50% to its lowest level since 1934. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party should look at its own record in office rather than criticising this Government?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I completely agree. Indeed, not only is my hon. Friend right, but the numbers get worse for Labour: in Labour’s last five years in charge, industrial electricity prices rose by two thirds, hitting the steel industry hard. In contrast, we have provided £500 million in relief to the steel industry since 2013 to help it to cope with high electricity costs. We have also fought hard to make sure that the industry does not have to face duties of 25% when we export to the European Union.

We are alert to concerns that China is artificially promoting state-subsidised steel. We can see the impact of such trade-distorting practices today, with the steel market 40% over capacity. The facts show that as we have stepped up to take action, the Labour party has been shuffling its feet. Despite the rhetoric today, in her very first appearance at the Dispatch Box in that role, the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make it clear to the United States that she would not agree a deal with our American friends that would constrain Britain’s ability to negotiate a deal with China. The right hon. Lady was willing to put a deal with China ahead of the deal with the United States.

Whether the Labour party has changed its policy on China or not, this people’s Government have no plans to do a trade deal with China. On the contrary, we have used our presidency of the G7 to rally an alliance of democracies in a battle for the soul of global trade. To win that battle, we want better and more modern rules at the World Trade Organisation, as well as new rules on industrial subsidies. That is why we are working under the G7 trade track, an initiative pioneered by Britain to set the agenda for WTO reform. This will be a tough fight, but it is a fight we must win. People cannot believe in free trade unless it is fair. That is why we need effective rules and tools.

Trade remedies are an important tool in our tool box, and it is right that Britain stands up for her key industries. It is right to have a robust framework in place, and we do. We said that we would get Brexit done and then move on to people’s priorities. We got Brexit done. We got a trade deal with the EU, and now we have transitioned 19 measures from the EU, plus the steel safeguard. Now that we have full control of our trade policy, we can go further to defend British industry and jobs, and take further action where necessary.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is painting a very positive picture. Has any consideration been given to ensuring that every Government contract is carried out using only British-based steel? Not only would that secure local jobs for local people, but I believe it would send a message that has been lost in our search for a good deal.

[Mr Jayawardena]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must champion British steel at every turn. Indeed, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been creating a strong pipeline to ensure that advance notice has been given to industry about the 7 million tonnes of steel that will be required, so that industry can seek the opportunities that lie ahead. The safeguard measures that Labour Members talk about today are only part of the picture with trade remedies. Dare I say that it is not the first time the Labour party has not quite understood international trade?

We must remember that safeguard measures are not intended to address unfair practices, which are the subject of the motion. They are emergency measures intended to tackle unforeseen surges in imports, and they are governed by strict WTO rules. It has been the job of the independent Trade Remedies Authority to investigate whether the steel safeguard measures should be extended, amended or revoked. That independent organisation has followed the evidence, and engaged widely with importers, domestic producers and overseas exporters. Although on Twitter the shadow Business Secretary seemingly does not know the difference between independence and being part of Government, the TRA is independent. This is not the Government’s proposal, and for each commodity covered by the safeguard measures, the TRA has considered whether there is domestic production, whether there is evidence that a surge in imports has caused or threatens to cause serious harm, and whether it is in British economic interests to maintain the measure.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State stated that she was shocked that the TRA had not considered what the impact would be if the restrictions were removed. Under schedule 49(4)(a) of the Trade Remedies (Increase in Imports Causing Serious Injury to UK Producers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, that is precisely what it must consider in its analysis. Does the Minister agree that the right hon. Lady does not know what she is talking about?

[Mr Jayawardena]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the lack of attention to detail on the Labour Benches. The approach we have taken forward is in line not only with WTO rules but with our domestic legislation.

I will tell you the truth, Madam Deputy Speaker: the TRA has recommended to the Secretary of State that nine product categories of the existing safeguard measure be removed. It judged that seven of them did not meet the requirement to show a significant increase in imports. Another failed to show any risk of serious injury or injury recurring, and the other did not pass the economic interest test, with industry asking for it to be removed, as the shadow Secretary of State discovered this morning, courtesy of the “Today” programme on BBC Radio 4. The Labour party seems intent on throwing the baby out with the bath water. The TRA recommended retaining the safeguard on 10 other product categories, and that would be exposed to legal challenge if we were arbitrarily to take the sort of decision that the Labour party advocates. Does the Labour party want to leave the WTO and adopt an isolationist approach in the world? I don’t, and I won’t.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jayawardena]

No.

In truth there is a choice between working hard, getting into the detail and defending British interests, which we are doing and will continue to do, and playing politics, as Labour Members and those on the left of our politics seem intent on doing.

It is worth remembering that the TRA was set up in 2018 under the last Government and places strict limits on the powers of the Secretary of State. Of course, the Labour party knows this, because Labour tried to curtail the Secretary of State’s powers even further. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, spoke against

“the public interest...being used as a mechanism to widen the powers of the Secretary of State.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2018; c. 103.]

During the passage of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, Labour stood against the Secretary of State being able to reject a recommendation of the TRA, but today Labour is asking us to legislate to do just that: to reject the TRA’s recommendation.

Under the legislation from the last Parliament—that dead Parliament—the Secretary of State does not have the power to change the TRA’s recommendation—

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jayawardena]

No, the right hon. Lady has had her say.

The Secretary of State does not have the power under the law to change the TRA’s recommendation on the safeguard measure to retain measures against its advice. She possesses only a downward ratchet, which means either accepting the TRA’s recommendation in its entirety or rejecting it and seeing every part of the safeguard measure expire on 30 June. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State takes these responsibilities very seriously and will reach a decision on the recommendation and publish it before the measure is due to expire.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I will.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is he in favour of these recommendations? Does he think they are a good idea or not?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I will come to the Secretary of State’s position and the process that will follow in a moment, but I must be clear—

[Emily Thornberry]

That is not what I asked.

[Mr Jayawardena]

The right hon. Lady did not answer the earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) either.

Extending the deadline for a decision is not an option, and extension of the safeguard on product categories would expose Britain to challenge from other member countries of the WTO for non-compliance with the agreement on safeguards, which, as I warned a moment ago, may lead to a WTO decision requiring the United Kingdom to revoke the measure in its entirety.

I thought the Labour party understood these principles. After all, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the then shadow Trade Minister, criticised President Trump for imposing

“protectionist tariffs that the rest of the world believes are illegal under WTO rules.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 39.]

Maybe that was Labour’s policy then and this is its policy now. Perhaps the Opposition were against the policies of President Trump then and support the policies of President Trump today. Either way, they do not have the British national interest at heart. The Labour party is showing once again that it is a protest party, lacking in competence and understanding of the issues. Labour may have changed its leader, but it poses a clear risk to our country.

Turning to our friends in Europe and America, we continue to have discussions with the steel sector to understand its concerns about the outcome of the EU’s steel safeguard review. We recognise the harm caused by the unfair and unjustified US tariffs levied on our steel industry under section 232. It is fake news to suggest that our steel industry threatens the viability of American steel producers or that it contributes to global excess capacity in the market. Trade barriers such as these are what bring the rules-based international trading system to its knees, yet that is the sort of approach that the Labour party is advocating tonight. We remain disappointed at the continued imposition of such tariffs and are pressing our American counterparts for an urgent and permanent resolution. After working to date to de-escalate the Boeing-Airbus dispute by agreeing to suspend retaliatory tariffs for five years, we now want to shift their attention to the unjustified section 232 tariffs and work with them to agree a fair, permanent resolution for British industry.

We will continue to deliver for the British people, and that is why we are reviewing the Secretary of State’s powers already, exploring and consulting on how we might legitimately be able to strengthen them. That is why we are working closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that trade remedies measures are up to date in the current context, not least following the pandemic. In the event of there being increased imports of unfairly subsidised products into the United Kingdom, we will not hesitate to take action to defend the industry using anti-dumping and anti-subsidy tariffs. That shows our resolve to improve our domestic toolkit and to use the tools at our disposal to tackle market-distorting practices, but rushing through changes to legislation, posing a risk to industry in the process, as Labour would have us do, is not the answer.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jayawardena]

No. We should all greatly value Britain’s reputation as a champion of global free and fair trade. We should not want to take actions that risk being found to be non-compliant at the WTO. The Secretary of State takes her responsibilities very seriously in considering the recommendation from the TRA, but the truth is that the best way forward, the right way forward, for our steel producers lies in free and fair trade. Together, we can make sure that this vital British industry enjoys a sustainable long-term future. The British people should be in no doubt: this people’s Government are backing our steel manufacturers; this people’s Government are backing the tens of thousands of jobs in the industry; and this people’s Government will continue to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, I remind colleagues that there is a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. If colleagues take less than three minutes, more people will get in—at the moment, not everyone will get in. I should also say that if colleagues choose to take interventions, I would be grateful if they still stuck to three minutes. Thank you. I call Marion Fellows, for the SNP.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ranil Jayawardena Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. The United Kingdom now has a fully operational trade remedies system that can take action if foreign subsidies harm British businesses. In addition, last month, my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary chaired a meeting of G7 Trade Ministers that called for the start of negotiations to develop stronger international rules on market-distorting subsidies and trade-distorting actions by state-owned enterprises, such as the forced transfer of technology.

[Dr Mullan]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. With nine out of 10 of the largest Chinese firms being state-owned enterprises, it is clear that the international rulebook is not keeping up with the latest players’ tactics. I do not want to see—I do not think anyone here wants to see—British businesses undercut. Will the Minister elaborate on what more we can do, working with like-minded allies in the WTO and the G7, to tackle these unfair practices?

[Mr Jayawardena]

My hon. Friend is right that global trading rules have not adapted to take account of China’s growth or its different economic model, so Britain cannot, and will not, allow her businesses to be damaged or undercut by those who do not play by the rules, such as through the non-transparent granting of different forms of industrial subsidies. We will work with like-minded partners at the G7, the G20, the WTO and elsewhere to address the harmful impacts of these unfair practices.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. The Trade Remedies Authority has made a deeply flawed recommendation to withdraw half of all the safeguards on steel. If the recommendation is implemented, it is likely to lead to a flood of steel imports, with potentially disastrous consequences for the steel industry, communities and livelihoods. The Government’s own regulations do not allow them to retain the safeguards unless the Trade Remedies Authority advises them to do so. The Secretary of State has already said that the regulations need to be reviewed, so will Ministers accept our offer to work together to find a way to retain these vital safeguards and, in so doing, live up to the commitment made by the Trade Secretary to do whatever it takes to protect our steel industry?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I am delighted to hear what the shadow Minister says, but what he is asking for, which is the imposition of measures against the independent recommendation of the TRA, is not within the Secretary of State’s powers today. In fact, his party argued that the Secretary of State should have fewer powers when the legislation was going through the House under the last Government. It wanted to curtail her powers further, and it was robust on that. We will not hesitate to defend British industry; that is our policy. The world has changed since 2018, when these powers were put in place, and the Trade Secretary is exploring what else might be needed in Britain’s toolkit to defend British industry.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

What assessment she has made of the potential benefits of a free trade agreement with Australia for Buckinghamshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

What recent discussions she has had with UK trade partners on inserting clauses on human rights in future trade deals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

The United Kingdom has long supported the promotion of her values globally. We are clear that more trade does not need to come at the expense of rights or responsibilities, and although our approach to agreements will vary between partners, our strong economic relationships allow us to have open discussions on a range of issues.

[Beth Winter]

Penblwydd hapus, Mr Speaker. Given the ongoing violations of international law by the Israeli Government, the attacks on the human rights of the Palestinian people and their suffering, and Israel’s recent bombardment of the Gaza strip in May, in which more than 240 Palestinians, over a quarter of them children, were killed, thousands more were injured and more than 90,000 people displaced, does the Minister agree that it is now essential that there is an investigation into whether UK-made arms or components have been used in the recent violence and destruction of homes, businesses and health facilities in Gaza? In the meantime, will the Government immediately cease the export of arms to Israel?

[Mr Jayawardena]

Every Israeli and Palestinian has the right to live in peace and security. We understand the deep frustration on all sides at the lack of progress in the middle east peace process. The ongoing violence just underlines that a lasting resolution that ends these problems is long overdue. In respect of our arms exports, we have a robust arms export control process in the United Kingdom that is governed by the consolidated criteria, and no exports occur where the consolidated criteria are not met.

[Liz Twist]

The UK’s deal with Cameroon will complete its ratification process today, with no vote by MPs and no apparent concern from Ministers about the abuse that is taking place in that country. Can I ask the Minister whether he thinks the US Government were wrong to end preferential trade with Cameroon because of the Biya regime’s abuses, and if not, why are we ratifying a deal to do the opposite?

[Mr Jayawardena]

The Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), spoke in an Adjournment debate yesterday on this topic, and the Opposition could, of course, have used an Opposition day debate on this area. We have a strong history of protecting rights around the world, promoting our values globally, and we will continue to do so. By having an economic partnership agreement in place and encouraging trade, we are continuing to support some of the most vulnerable people in Cameroon, providing valuable employment and helping to lift them out of poverty.

[Ms Rimmer]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.

“Mass torture”, “rape” and “forced sterilisation”—that is the testimony of dozens of survivors at the Uyghur tribunal in London, which is chaired by the former lead prosecutor at The Hague, Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC. Does the Minister really think the British Government should be turning a blind eye to the suffering of the human race for the sake of trade deals?

[Mr Jayawardena]

We have not. We have proven our leadership and commitment time and again. We have ramped up pressure on China in multilateral forums. We are taking targeted action on supply chains and our approach to China remains clear-eyed: we remain rooted in our values and in our interests. The truth is that we have announced a series of measures to help make sure that British businesses and the public sector are in no way complicit in the rights violations in Xinjiang, and that includes making sure there is a review of export controls as they apply to the situation there.

[Geraint Davies [V]]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. The English-speaking population in Cameroon faces mass killings, atrocities and torture. As we have heard, the US has now invoked trade sanctions, but the UK has signed a trade deal without parliamentary approval. So can I ask: has the EU’s essential rights clause now been removed from all future trade deals, so that abuses, however abhorrent and widespread, will now be supported by the British economy through secret deals, thereby taking control back from Parliament and giving it to those with blood on their hands?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to in respect of secret deals. This is an agreement that the EU had originally. We have continued an agreement here to provide certainty to businesses in both countries and to date the EU has not taken measures against Cameroon—I know how fond he is of the EU.

[Alex Cunningham]

In response to the Adjournment debate last night, the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, told the House in relation to Cameroon that

“Violence does appear to have decreased in recent months compared with the peak of the conflict”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 1070.]

as if the fact that the Biya regime is killing and maiming fewer of its citizens was justification for our trade deal with them. Is it really the Government’s position that it is fine to do trade deals with murderous regimes if they are now killing fewer of their own people than they were?

[Mr Jayawardena]

The British people will have noticed that I have now answered five questions from Labour Members on future trade agreements and, instead of seeking to secure benefits for their constituents on those deals, they are clutching at straws to stop them. The Labour party is hopelessly out of touch. This Conservative Government are focused on delivering for the British people. Unlike Labour, we have a plan for jobs and growth, and trade is central to that. We have secured trade deals with 67 countries around the world, plus the EU, covering trade worth £730 billion last year—and we are just getting started.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

What steps her Department is taking to support UK steel exports.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

If she will include provisions to support domestic battery development in future trade deals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

We recognise the importance of domestic battery development and manufacturing, which is why we have engaged with business to understand its needs and ensure that our free trade agreements deliver. That includes negotiating rules of origin that consider the transition to electric vehicles and enable British manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan to access global markets.

[Steve McCabe [V]]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.

As the Minister acknowledges, the future of our car industry in the west midlands is dependent on battery production and the Government giving the go-ahead for a gigafactory, but battery production requires ready access to materials such as cobalt, lithium and manganese. Will he tell us which countries he is talking to about trade deals that would secure these supplies?

[Mr Jayawardena]

We are talking to friends around the world to make sure that our supply chains are more resilient than ever before. That is a clear lesson from our coronavirus situation, where we have seen that we should not be too reliant on any one country. We have prioritised securing investment in battery cell gigafactories, to which the hon. Member refers. I am delighted that he is supporting our agenda, which we believe is key to anchoring the mass manufacture of electric vehicles in Britain, safeguarding jobs and driving emissions to net zero by 2050.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

What steps her Department has taken to ensure that (a) farmers and (b) food producers in Bishop Auckland can benefit from an free trade agreement with Australia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently working on a possible trade deal with the Gulf, which would be of great benefit to all concerned. For trade to be successful, we need to ensure easy mobility for business people, but currently Emiratis wanting to visit the UK on the visa waiver scheme are permitted only a single entry in a period of six months. Will the Minister work with colleagues in the Home Office to allow multiple entries so that the UK is never at a disadvantage compared with other European countries?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise the importance of the Gulf given that the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council are our third-largest non-EU export market, at over £30 billion last year. I am very pleased that we have a strong visa offer for our partners there, including the electronic visa waiver programme, and that the introduction of Britain’s new points-based immigration system creates a level playing field for the first time in many years. I will continue to work closely with fellow Ministers at the Home Office to make sure that the visa system contributes to Britain rightly being recognised as a world leader with which to trade and invest.

[Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)]

Happy birthday from Blyth Valley, Mr Speaker. I recently had the pleasure of visiting B&B Attachments, a fantastic firm in Cramlington that designs and constructs stock handling machinery for the front of forklift trucks. During my visit, it became evident that now more than ever, we need to showcase the ability of such firms on a global stage. Does the Secretary of State agree that she is doing all she can to support and promote the achievements of our homegrown manufacturing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]]

The Secretary of State will be aware that, post Brexit, there have been substantial changes to checks being undertaken on products of animal origin. However, an abundance of red tape, including the need for certified veterinarians to sign off dairy products, rather than a dairy inspector, as required by most non-EU countries, is creating an additional burden and causing extensive delays to the processing of crucial consumer products. Will Ministers impress on their Cabinet colleagues the need to resolve these delays and press for a speedy resolution to facilitate efficient trade across borders?

[Mr Jayawardena]

The Labour party is the party of red tape; we are the ones who are getting rid of it. We have called for pragmatism in this area. We are a sovereign nation—we are British, and we are proud of it—and we are going to stand by every corner of this country as we deliver trade benefits and create jobs. In respect of the issues around meat, it is wrong that anyone should be threatening the British sausage. We will stand up for the British sausage, and no one will ever be able to destroy it.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

A very happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. In Burnley and Padiham, we have world-class skills and products, and when we export those, it is phenomenally successful, but we know that businesses struggle with having the confidence and knowledge to export if they have never done it before. Could my hon. Friend set out what steps the Department for International Trade is taking to give businesses the support they need when exporting for the first time, so that we can push the “made in Burnley” message even further around the world?

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

The International Trade Secretary described her new deal with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein as a “major boost” for our trade, but the Norwegian Government were more realistic. They said that the deal is “not as comprehensive” as our previous arrangements, that trade would be“more bureaucratic and less dynamic”and that without a veterinary agreement, there will be“a number of trade barriers”that we did not previously face. Does the Secretary of State recognise that more honest description of the deal, and will she take steps to reduce the barriers to trade that she has created for our exporters and importers?

[Mr Jayawardena]

Once again, the Labour party is obsessed by membership of the European Union. It has not moved on from the referendum, when the British people provided a clear signal to us in this place that we should get on with delivering the benefits of Brexit. This deal is a world leader in digital trade, eliminating the need for paperwork, and many countries and trade blocs could learn from that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ranil Jayawardena Excerpts

Thursday 15th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

What recent assessment her Department has made of the effect of steel import tariffs on the UK steel industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

First, may I associate myself with the tributes on Monday led by you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister on the death of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, and the Humble Address of the House of Commons to Her Majesty?

We are committed to defending British industry and jobs and will not hesitate to take firm action where necessary, which is why we have safeguard measures in place. We know there are concerns that Chinese steel is receiving state subsidies that distort trade, so, working with our allies, we will challenge China and other countries to play by the rules.

[Marion Fellows [V]]

Motherwell in my constituency was once the heart of steel production in Scotland and the rest of the UK, but consecutive UK Governments have overseen the decline of steel jobs in Scotland from thousands to just over 100. Will the UK Government provide certainty for steelworkers today, support domestic production, protect those remaining jobs and retain the tariffs on steel imports?

[Mr Jayawardena]

When the Trade Remedies Authority is set up, it will conclude its investigation, which it would be wrong to pre-empt. We are of course working for every corner of our United Kingdom, backing British businesses and supporting Scottish jobs as much as we are supporting those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—at a time when the Scottish National party wants to cut itself off from its largest market: the British internal market.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]]

I am afraid the 5,000 workers at Liberty Steel will not have been reassured by the Minister’s answer. The collapse of Greensill Capital has created serious problems at Liberty Steel and is one of many reasons why the entire British steel industry now urgently needs leadership, stability and support from the Government. Can we get some clarity? Retaining the import tariffs is a political decision. Will the Minister play his part today by guaranteeing that the Government will retain the vital safeguard tariffs that Britain currently has in place against cheap steel imports for the full financial year ahead—no ifs, no buts and no maybes?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I do love the authenticity with which the hon. Gentleman asked his question; of course, if it were a political decision, he would be calling for it to be independent. It is an independent decision. The Trade Remedies Authority has teeth and will act accordingly. Just like this Government, our Trade Remedies Authority is going to defend the British national industry, back British jobs and support people throughout our United Kingdom.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

What recent discussions she has had with her US counterpart on not re-imposing tariffs on UK exports to the US.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

What steps her Department is taking to help ensure a level trading field for UK steel producers while the EU and US maintain import controls on steel goods.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

The Government back the British steel industry, as we have heard already this morning, and the unjustified US tariffs on steel, aluminium and derivatives imports from Britain are completely unfair and wholly unnecessary. Our rebalancing measures in response to the US section 232 on additional tariffs show that we will defend the British national interest and the rules-based system.

[Stephen Kinnock [V]]

Our steelworkers make the best steel that money can buy but, thanks to the indifference of successive Conservative Governments since 2010, they are constantly being made to compete with one hand tied behind their back. They are already dealing with the highest industrial energy prices in Europe and a Government procurement policy that fails the patriotism test, and now they face the possibility that, in June, steel safeguards that guard against import surges will be removed. Does the Minister agree that, if the Government were to remove those safeguards, it would add insult to injury and again undermine the ability of our steel industry to compete on a level playing field?

[Mr Jayawardena]

As the hon. Member knows, the British steel industry has benefited from investment of more than £500 million in recent years to help with the costs of energy, and we have announced a £250 million fund to support the decarbonisation of the industry. So this Government are dedicated to supporting the future of the steel industry and we will continue that work.

[Margaret Ferrier [V]]

Removing these measures would lead to the UK being one of the only steel markets without any protective measures for its steel industries. Does the Minister not agree that, while global overcapacity stands at over 500 million tonnes, it would be unwise to become a rare exposed market for steel when larger markets are still protected?

[Mr Jayawardena]

Mr Speaker, there are only so many times that I can say the same thing in a different way, but we have transitioned 19 of the EU’s measures and we have adopted systems in Britain for trade remedies based on international best practice to ensure that there is independence in this area. I say to the hon. Lady, as I have said already to her Scottish nationalist colleague, that the biggest market for Scotland is of course the British internal market, from which she is determined to tear Scotland.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

What steps she is taking to tackle the use of (a) trade-distorting subsidies and (b) other unfair trading practices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that arms exported from the UK are not deployed in contravention of international humanitarian law.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

All arms exports require an export licence. I can assure the House that we take our export control responsibilities very seriously. We rigorously assess every application on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, taking advice from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence. We will not issue an export licence where to do so would be inconsistent with the consolidated criteria, including where there is a clear risk that the items might be used for a serious violation of international humanitarian law.

[Kim Johnson [V]]

The Yemeni community in Liverpool would like to know how the Minister can possibly justify the decision of his Department to increase its sales of bombs and missiles for use in Yemen to new record highs, while his friends at the Foreign Office are simultaneously cutting the amount of humanitarian aid going to starving Yemeni children. Does he accept that this is not just wrong, but downright immoral?

[Mr Jayawardena]

Not only are Her Majesty’s Government one of the biggest donors of aid around the world, including to Yemen, but as was set out in the Secretary of State’s written statement, we have devised a clear and revised methodology to make sure we will only license such products if they are consistent with the consolidated criteria.

[Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

What recent assessment she has made of the potential effect of her Department’s trade policies on UK farmers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

What recent discussions she has had with her US counterpart on trade sanctions on exports from Xinjiang.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

The Secretary of State spoke with the US trade representative, Katherine Tai, on 22 March. They discussed a number of issues, including how the United Kingdom and the United States will collaborate to address shared concerns on serious matters such as forced labour. The Secretary of State also discussed the issue of forced labour with Ambassador Tai and her G7 counterparts during the G7 Trade Ministers meeting that she chaired on 31 March.

[Yasmin Qureshi [V]]

The Magnitsky-style sanctions against China are only the first step. While we welcome them, trade relations cannot be left out. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that UK consumers are not buying goods made with forced labour, and will the UK follow the US in banning imports of cotton from China’s Xinjiang region?

[Mr Jayawardena]

We are adopting a targeted approach to this issue, to make sure that we address the violations of rights and responsibilities. We have designated individuals and entities that have been involved in such violations. This is a smart tool, carefully targeted to achieve its goals, while minimising potentially negative wider impacts. It is not designed with a view to imposing sanctions on sectors within countries, for example.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to improve trade and business relationships between the UK and Sweden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

What recent assessment she has made of the potential merits of strengthening the UK’s trading relationship with Tunisia. [R]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Tunisia and Libya. There is great merit in strengthening the trading relationship with Tunisia. Our trade deal entered into force at the beginning of this year and it provides a platform to deepen trade and investment. As he knows, we are already supporting businesses such as Unilever, AstraZeneca and Vodafone, who already operate in Tunisia, and we look forward to backing British businesses to do even more.

[Damien Moore [V]]

Tunisia is a leading exporter of olive oil and wants to export more to the UK, but minimum quota requirements based on the last two years are making this difficult. Will my hon. Friend look into this so that trade is made easy with Tunisia, which is eager to build an even stronger trading partnership with the UK?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I am aware of this matter and am keen to make sure that businesses can make the most of our transition to trade agreements, so I will look into it. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and my Tunisian counterpart to open up and promote opportunities for British and Tunisian businesses; more trade means more jobs.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

What recent estimate she has made of the number of jobs in Teesside that are delivered by international trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

What steps she is taking to strengthen the UK’s trade relationship with the middle east.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

Britain has strong bilateral trading relationships with our friends in the middle east and a clear ambition to deepen them. As my right hon. Friend knows, we are undertaking a joint trade and investment review with the Gulf Co-operation Council, with which total trade stood at over £33 billion in the year to September 2020. The Government have also signed trade agreements with Jordan and Lebanon, and just last month we entered into an agreement with the sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi to provide £1 billion of investment into British life sciences.

[Robert Halfon [V]]

Today is Yom Ha’atzmaut—Israeli independence day—so I hope that my hon. Friend will wish Israel happy independence day. The normalisation of ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain last year was a hugely positive step not only for regional peace but for commerce, tourism and cultural exchanges. Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom is well placed to support our ally Israel in developing ties in the region, and will he explore the opportunities that these new trade relationships could bring to our country?

[Mr Jayawardena]

Indeed I do join my right hon. Friend in wishing all Israelis a happy independence day. He is right to recognise the strong relationships that we have with the state of Israel. We welcome the normalisation of relations, which creates many opportunities for increased trade, tourism and cultural links as well. Britain is well placed to support Israel in this endeavour. Total trade between us was £4.9 billion in the year to September 2020, up from the previous year. We are building a framework for a new bilateral science partnership. In addition, the tech hub based in the British embassy in Tel Aviv continues to partner Israeli expertise with British companies, delivering significant benefits to the British economy.

[Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)]

What recent estimate she has made of the number of jobs in the north-west that are delivered by international trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

The text, and a parliamentary report and explanatory memorandum, will of course come before Parliament in due course. We wish to utilise the agreement to strengthen the trade ties between our two countries. I look forward to the Labour party supporting our agenda to create more jobs in every part of this country and in Cameroon.

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)]

I have been delighted to work with the excellent team at the Department of International Trade in setting up the parliamentary export programme in Wakefield, which several Wakefield businesses have joined. The programme has allowed them to learn the benefits of exporting under the free trade agreements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her excellent, dynamic team have signed thus far. With more free trade agreements to be ratified, including with blocs such as the CPTPP, can my right hon. Friend outline to the House what benefits these new agreements will bring to businesses in Wakefield and across West Yorkshire?

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]]

  In its annual report on human rights around the world, Amnesty International says that the UK Government’s increasingly hostile attitude towards upholding and preserving human rights legislation raises “serious concerns”. Indeed, the report specifically cited the resumption of the sale of new licences for military exports to Saudi Arabia. Does the Minister agree with Amnesty International’s conclusion that this shameful move has contributed to the UK’s“headlong rush into abandoning...human rights”?

[Mr Jayawardena]

Not at all. We have always been clear that more trade need not come at the expense of our values, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear earlier today. We have one of the most robust systems of arms export controls in the world and have always been clear that we will only permit exports on a case-by-case basis where the consolidated criteria are upheld.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]]

  Will my right hon. Friend set out what progress her Department is making on meeting the 2.3% public sector apprenticeship target and when it will meet it, and also say what she is doing to encourage all the businesses that she speaks to about international trade to employ apprentices?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ranil Jayawardena Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

What recent discussions she has had with UK trade partners on inserting clauses on human rights in future trade deals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

The United Kingdom has long promoted her values globally. While our approach to agreements will vary between partners, it will always allow this Government to open discussions on issues, including on rights and responsibilities. We are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of our values.

[Emma Hardy [V]]

The Lords have listened to the Minister’s objections to the genocide amendment and done everything to accommodate them in its latest iteration, while retaining the fundamental objective that judges should decide whether genocide has been committed. On behalf of the Government, will the Minister of State finally agree to accept the will of Parliament and back this historic amendment?

[Mr Jayawardena]

We are clear that Britain has a long history of protecting rights and promoting our values globally. We will continue to encourage all states to uphold international rights obligations, including under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. We supported an amendment in this House on the principle of a formal parliamentary process leading to a guaranteed debate, but the latest amendment is unacceptable because it seeks to bring about constitutional reform by the back door, and it would impinge on the proper constitutional settlement, blurring the distinctions between the courts and Parliament.

[Tony Lloyd [V]]

I say to the Minister that this country does have a proud record of upholding human rights, but this Government have a very unhappy record of allowing, for example, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which has seen the killing of innocent men, women and children. On that basis, does he accept that trust is fundamentally important on the issue of human rights under any Government? Why should anybody trust this Government?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I certainly want to make sure that all Members across this House can trust this Government, but I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that Labour’s record on this is hypocritical and, sadly, it enabled antisemitism to be rife within its ranks. They turned a blind eye to terrible behaviour from countries that they like, like Venezuela, and the shadow Secretary of State even shared a platform with Hamas. So we will not be lectured by the Opposition on these issues.

[Cat Smith]

I last raised this issue on the Floor of the House on 19 November, and the Minister for Trade Policy told me to

“judge us on our deeds and not always on our words.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 455.]

So can I clarify, when it comes to human rights and Saudi air strikes in Yemen, that we should be judging the Government on the export licensing statistics published last month, which included the sale of £1.36 billion-worth of bombs and missiles to Saudi between July and September 2020—almost as much as the last 19 quarters put together?

[Mr Jayawardena]

We have a rigorous arms export control system in this country, one of the best in the world, and no arms will be exported that are inconsistent with the consolidated criteria, which were introduced in 2014.

[Rachel Hopkins [V]]

I just want to press the Minister on the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). Last September, the UN said that Saudi airstrikes in Yemen had led to a consistent pattern of harm to civilians, unlike our own Government who said in July that there was no such pattern and that it was therefore lawful to resume arms exports. Can the Minister of State explain how his Department looked at exactly the same evidence as the UN and reached an entirely different conclusion?

[Mr Jayawardena]

We rely on a range of information from across Government, non-governmental organisations and elsewhere and we will always make sure that all of that evidence is properly considered before any arms are exported anywhere in the world.

[Imran Hussain [V]]

Grave human rights abuses, including torture, rape, extra-judicial killings, and arbitrary detention continue to be committed against Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Will the Minister ensure that any trade deal signed with the Indian Government includes firm commitments to ending those human rights abuses and holding a free and fair plebiscite, as agreed by the United Nations, that allows the sons and daughters of Kashmir to fulfil their birthright to self-determination?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s passion for this issue, but where is the passion for jobs, where is the passion for exports, and where is the passion for investment? That is what this Government are getting on with. Perhaps it is because they cannot make up their minds on the Opposition Benches: they are against deals with democracies such as Israel as well, and yet they have cosied up to regimes such as Venezuela. Although this question was about future trade deals, we will get on and deliver jobs and prosperity for the British people.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It has now been two months since Ministers agreed a trade deal with Cameroon. It was shortly before the US Senate voted to suspend theirs because of President Biya’s human rights record. Incredibly, we do not know what the UK’s trade deal with Cameroon says on human rights, because it has still not been published. Can the Minister tell us when Parliament will be finally shown that deal, and can he guarantee a debate on it in Government time?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I welcome the fact that the shadow Minister is interested in our trade agreement with Cameroon, which benefits both countries to the tune of £177 million-worth of bilateral trade, but the British people will have heard today six questions from the Labour Benches and not one of them included anything about jobs. That just shows, sadly, that Labour has no intention of delivering for the British people and capitalising on our independent trade policy, because it is anti-trade, anti-jobs, EU-obsessed and it sneers at those who do not share their world view and are proud to be British.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]]

One area, of course, where we do not have problems with human rights clauses being inserted is the EU. The Minister is interested in jobs. I have a small company in my constituency, Poco Nido, which employs four people. The owner of that company, Catherine Lobley, has told me that, since the end of December, she has not had a single shipment of goods getting through to the EU. The goods are caught up in customs and have been stuck there for three weeks. She says that the whole system has collapsed. Her 10-year-old business will be destroyed, with the jobs, within a month unless the Minister acts. When will the Minister ensure that the Brexit deal that the Government promised is actually delivered in practice?

[Mr Jayawardena]

My hon. Friend the Minister for exports is doing great work to make sure that British businesses can export to the world, including to the EU, and the hon. Gentleman will know that we have covered deals with 64 countries, plus the EU, protecting trade worth £889 billion. Of course we want to make sure that, in the years ahead, there can be more trade with the EU, our near neighbours and good friends, but we are also focused in this Department on trading with the world.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

What steps she is taking to improve access for UK exporters to high growth global markets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]]

With the Biden Administration announcing plans to end arms exports to Saudi Arabia, the UK is isolated on the world stage as it continues to sell arms to this barbaric regime. Will the Minister explain how this Government can claim to have the most effective export regime in the world when it has the moral stain of being virtually isolated in the world in its obstinate support for Saudi Arabia, which is a serial human rights violator?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

As I said earlier, we have one of the most robust systems in the world for arms export controls. All exports are governed by the consolidated criteria, and we have a proud record in this country of upholding our values. In the 19th century, we abolished slavery. In the 1990s, we were peacekeepers in the Balkans. We have always played our role in the world and we will continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]]

This month’s figures show that the UK authorised arms sales worth almost £1.4 billion to Saudi Arabia. In the same month, the UN warned that the conflict in Yemen had taken a sharp escalatory turn. As several other Members have asked, will the Minister please explain why he has not followed the lead of his counterparts in the US and Italy and halted arms sales to Saudi Arabia? Does he agree that this behaviour has actively undermined efforts on peace talks?

[Mr Jayawardena]

As I have said, we do have a robust arms export control policy in Britain, and it is absolutely right that we maintain our own independent policy. The policies of the United States are a matter for the United States.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]]

The strong British pound and economy attracted significant foreign investment when the UK was a member of the EU. Can my right hon. Friend outline the steps that are being taken to ensure that, as we come out of the EU and out of the pandemic, the UK becomes an even more attractive place to invest, increasing quality jobs and helping to turbocharge our economy?

Free Trade Agreements

Ranil Jayawardena Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

In under two years, HM Government have secured trade deals with 63 countries, which covered £217 billion of trade in 2019. Taken alongside our recent deal with the European Union, trade worth £885 billion in 2019 is now covered. No country, anywhere in the world, at any point in history, has conducted trade negotiations concurrently on this scale nor with our ambition.

We reached agreements with some of our largest trading partners such as Canada, South Korea, Switzerland and Norway—and agreed economic partnership agreements with South Africa, Kenya and others. Most recently, on 29 December 2020, we secured a trade agreement with Turkey—worth £18.6 billion in the previous full year. All have been on the basis of providing continuity to the existing trading arrangements that we enjoy and providing a firm foundation for deeper trading relations in the future.

This strong progress not only accounts for 97% of the value of trade with non-EU countries that we initially set out to secure agreements with—it goes further. Since the beginning of the transition period, we expanded the ambition of our programme to go above and beyond its original scope. In doing so, we secured agreements with Japan, Singapore, Vietnam and Turkey, which accounted for £72 billion of trade in 2019.

This has been the culmination of extensive work led by my Department, working hand-in-hand with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and carried out across the whole of HM Government. While this has been a difficult time, we and our partners have adapted our work—as far as possible—to reflect the reality of the global pandemic, and respecting public health, to bring forward deals that work for British businesses and the British people.

Parliamentary scrutiny has, and always will be, important in trade negotiations. All continuity agreements are laid in Parliament under the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG) for scrutiny, and we will continue following this process for future trade agreements.

HM Government have built on statutory commitments by voluntarily publishing parliamentary reports alongside agreements, identifying and explaining clearly any differences with previous EU agreements. My Department has held close and constructive discussions with the parliamentary Committees on the progress of our programme over the last few years too; I was pleased to see this engagement praised by the Lords’ International Agreements Sub-Committee in their report on working practices.

Trade remains a reserved matter, but we have engaged with the devolved Administrations, crown dependencies and overseas territories on the continuity programme regularly, including through sharing of texts and providing implementation support.

Where a continuity agreement was unable to complete the CRaG process before the end of the transition period, we have brought them into effect via “provisional application”, or through a “bridging mechanism”. These are tried and tested methods, used widely around the world, and do not affect Parliament’s ability to fully scrutinise these deals under CRaG. All signed agreements will be submitted to Parliament for scrutiny. We have also recently re-published a technical note outlining how we have brought agreements into force and effect, as well as those we have not been able to complete, due to entry-into-force considerations.

Many deals have been done—even where it was previously thought by some to be impossible—but we have always been clear that we will only agree to a deal if it is in the British national interest, irrespective of deadlines. Likewise, factors in those countries with who are negotiating, such as elections or delays in forming a government, can intervene and halt trade negotiations.

As a result, it was not possible to secure agreements with Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Algeria, Montenegro and Albania by the end of the transition period. British exports to these markets totalled less than £1 billion in 2019, or just 0.07% of our total trade.

In addition, though we were unable to sign an agreement for entry into force on 1 January, Ghana reached a consensus with us on the main elements of an agreement on 31 December 2020. All these countries remain valued partners on a range of economic and security issues, so our message is clear—if they wish to regain the terms of trade that have existed in recent past, they will find a willing partner in Britain. We have published updated guidance on gov.uk to make sure businesses are aware of the changes that came into force at the turn of the year.

Our continuity programme will deliver a real and positive impact for British businesses and consumers. And this is not the end of the journey. There is more to do in the months and years ahead.

All the deals my Department is negotiating will bring trade and investment to Britain—delivering economic growth, creating opportunity in every corner of our great country, helping Britain bounce back.

Trade leads to better jobs and higher wages for workers; and more choice and lower prices for consumers. Trade helps protect our environment and protect our health. Trade is a force for good and I look forward to making further progress in the future.

[HCWS748]

Oral Answers to Questions

Ranil Jayawardena Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

What discussions she has had with her Brazilian counterpart on enhancing environmental standards as part of a bilateral trade agreement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

Britain will not sacrifice her high standards of environmental protection in any future free trade agreements. At present, we do not have a trade agreement with Brazil, but we are clear that more trade does not need to come at the expense of our values. The Secretary of State and I raised the pressing issue of deforestation most recently on 11 November at our joint economic and trade committee with Brazil.

[Kerry McCarthy [V]]

I thank the Minister for his response, but in recent correspondence I have had with the Brazilian ambassador, he has refused even to acknowledge that deforestation is an issue in the Amazon. We have also seen recent reports in the press about terrible working conditions on Brazilian beef farms, which have been described as akin to modern slavery. What more can be done to ensure not only that these concerns are raised in discussions with Brazil but that any future bilateral trade deal is conditional on Brazil taking action to stop the abuse of workers and the deforestation?

[Mr Jayawardena]

The hon. Lady is right: there is, of course, more that can be done, which is why the United Kingdom has already committed £259 million to Brazil through its international climate finance programme to tackle deforestation. For example, the early movers programme rewards pioneers in forest conservation, and another programme led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has protected the clearance of something like 430,000 acres in Brazil.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]]

As we all know, Scotland opposed leaving the European Union, and leaving the European Union is going to cost the UK about 4.9% of GDP. Many are concerned that a trade deal with Brazil will be a threat to UK poultry and meat production. Will the Minister ensure that lower meat production standards do not get on the table in any way, shape or form? What is the GDP gain of a deal with Brazil? Do the Government have that figure, or is it similar to the Australia trade deal, which is projected to be 245 times smaller than the Brexit damage that the Tory Government have foisted upon the UK?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I thank the Chairman of the International Trade Committee for his question. I can be clear that we are firmly committed to upholding our high environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards now that we are outside the EU. Indeed, we have the agility and flexibility to enhance them where we believe that that is right. We can also go further on trade. That includes recently opening new opportunities for fish by securing approval from Brazil for seven new British fisheries facilities, which means that companies can now sell high-quality British fish to an import market that was worth almost £1 billion in 2019.

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

What progress she has made in securing continuity trade agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]]

What steps she is taking to strengthen the UK’s trade relationship with the Middle East.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

Britain has strong bilateral trading relationships with our friends in the middle east and a clear ambition to deepen them. That is why we have launched a joint trade and investment review with the Gulf Cooperation Council, with which total trade stood at almost £41 billion in the year to June 2020. We continue our work with other parts of the region too, particularly where we have trade agreements and are seeking to maximise new opportunities.

[Robert Halfon [V]]

The recent report from the all-party group on the Kurdistan Region in Iraq, which I chair, identifies opportunities for British bodies in energy, solar power, film production, higher education and agriculture, including quality pomegranates from Halabja, and it states that the Government should organise a second official trade mission once covid allows. Will the Minister talk with his colleagues, the Kurdistan Regional Government, and the APPG to consider how such a trade mission could boost investment and trade with our allies, who constantly seek British expertise, goods and services?

[Mr Jayawardena]

Sadly, such travel is somewhat restricted at this moment in time, but my right hon. Friend is right to highlight the opportunities across the whole middle east region. For instance, in the education sector, which I know is a particular passion of his, my Department has supported companies to win more than 30 contracts in the middle east, worth more than £58 million over the past year. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend to take that forward.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]]

What steps her Department has taken to help ensure that businesses in the north-west can benefit from future free trade agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

What steps her Department has taken to help ensure that (a) farmers and (b) food producers in Wales can benefit from future free trade agreements.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

Global Britain’s trade agreements will benefit food and drink producers and farmers by driving up growth and opening new markets to them. Just in 2019, Wales exported £123 million-worth of meat products globally, so a future trade deal with the US and others could reduce barriers. A deal with the US alone could boost the Welsh economy by £154 million, helping to create more jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Fay Jones [V]]

On Christmas day, a local sheep farmer knocked on my door to give me a Christmas present—a box of swedes—as a thank you for the Prime Minister reaching our historic free trade agreement with the EU. Sheep farmers in Brecon and Radnorshire have warmly welcomed the deal with the EU, the largest market for Welsh lamb, but my farmers are not prepared to stand still; opening new markets through rewarding trade deals is essential to future-proofing the sheep sector. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will look to give sheep farmers across Brecon and Radnorshire every possible opportunity to get their lamb across the world?

[Mr Jayawardena]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of the farming industry in her constituency and across Wales, and I can assure her that the Government are committed to securing future free trade agreements that will open up markets for farmers in Wales. Indeed, the United Kingdom-Japan free trade agreement is particularly beneficial, as it will protect Welsh lamb under the new agreement on geographical indicators. Sheep farmers such as Rhug Estate have already welcomed the opportunity to export their high-quality lamb to Japan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

Now that we have delivered on all our Brexit promises, exporters across the Bolsover constituency are keen to take advantage of new opportunities and grow in new markets. So will my hon. Friend tell me what opportunities will come from new and better trade deals with Mexico and Canada for businesses across the midlands?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is a great champion of business in his constituency, and I can tell him that the deals with Canada and Mexico give vital certainty to businesses across the midlands, which export goods and services worth about £15 billion, in key sectors such as automotive, manufacturing and food and drink. I know that these opportunities, and new ones, will be taken up by businesses—manufacturers and others—on the Holmewood business park in Shirebrook and across the Bolsover constituency.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)[V]]

Data is the lifeblood of modern economies, but the data provisions in the UK-Japan deal, which Ministers have been boasting about this morning, make it less likely that the EU will grant us the vital adequacy agreement that our researchers and businesses need in just a few months. So can Ministers explain how these contradictions are to be resolved?

Draft Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Ranil Jayawardena Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone about the social distancing regulations. Spaces available to hon. Members are clearly marked with a tick, and I would be really grateful if you stuck to those spaces only. Hansard colleagues would be really grateful if you sent any speaking notes to them via email.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 15 October. The regulations are necessary to ensure a functioning export control regime at the end of the transition period on 31 December. The aim of the regulations is to take forward the transposing of the existing system, which is reliant on EU law, into the United Kingdom’s own law. At the same time, they implement certain EU regulations in Northern Ireland to the extent required by the Northern Ireland protocol. They are not intended to make any change in export control policy.

At this point, I wish to be open with right hon. and hon. Members. My Department has taken forward these regulations in good faith, and I both acknowledge and welcome the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments following its meeting on 25 November. As you know, Mrs Miller, I am not a solicitor or parliamentary draftsman, and I am not sure how many of us here this morning are, which is why I welcome the scrutiny that the Joint Committee is able to provide. The Joint Committee has shown that the drafting of this statutory instrument could be improved, and I am grateful for that.

What I do know is that the purpose of new article 42N(2) of the Export Control Order 2008 is to re-enact, in relation to transfers from Northern Ireland, an existing exception that allows the transfer of software or technology that is or may be intended for weapons of mass destruction purposes from the United Kingdom by non-electronic means—most usually paper—if either the final destination of the software or technology is the customs territory of the European Union, or processing or working is to be performed on the software or technology in the customs territory of the European Union, in which case the law of the destination member state will be responsible for the control of any subsequent transfer.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging at the outset the error that the Joint Committee has identified. The noble Lord Grimstone, when commenting on its report, said:

“Nothing is weakened by this error; indeed, the situation is strengthened for this particular category of software that might be used for weapons of mass destruction.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. GC202.]

Given the significance of the issue—we are talking about potential items that could be used to do huge damage—why not just leave the strengthened provision, albeit that it was originally conceived in error, on the statute book?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s reflections on my noble Friend Lord Grimstone’s remarks. I will come to the point about this being a strengthening of the regime, but also how it interplays with the Northern Ireland protocol, in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.

Re-enactment is necessary overall because the existing exception, which applies in relation to the entire United Kingdom, is to be removed at the end of the transition period and export controls will be applied for exporting from Great Britain, so there is a distinction. As the shadow Minister has just said, the effect of the incorrect conjunction in article 42N(2)—“and” instead of “or”—between sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), is to make the exception less permissive. In other words, as he implies, it makes the exception less of an exception: it makes our export controls from Northern Ireland even tougher than intended, as exporters wishing to use the exception will need to comply with both conditions, not one or the other.

To be clear, the provision does not take effect today; it would only be in relation to transfers from Northern Ireland after the transition period. Given that the drafting makes the regulation tougher, not weaker, my Department did not consider the error to have sufficient impact to warrant the withdrawal and re-laying of these draft regulations. To do so would mean that appropriate export controls would not be transposed into the United Kingdom’s own law at this point. That is not an outcome that anyone here would want.

For context, I should say that my Department assesses the likelihood that people and businesses transfer software or technology from Northern Ireland to the European Union by non-electronic means, despite awareness that the software is or may be intended, in entirety or in part, for WMD purposes, as very low—a very rare event. None the less, I have instructed my Department to correct the error later this month.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but I genuinely say to him that he has not yet explained why we do not just leave the provision as it is. Will he get to that point?

[Mr Jayawardena]

Of course I will; the hon. Gentleman has not given me a chance yet. That is indeed my very next point. As I said, I have instructed my Department to correct the error later this month, and we will do so through an instrument using the negative procedure, as is appropriate in these circumstances.

To the point that the shadow Minister makes, I should say that the United Kingdom already has one of the strictest export control regimes in the world. Members will know that all export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. In reaching a decision, the Department for International Trade receives advice from several Departments, including the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Together, we draw on all available information, including reports from non-governmental organisations and our diplomatic missions.

The consolidated criteria provide a thorough risk-assessment framework and require us to think hard about the impact of exporting any equipment. These are not decisions, whatever the use of the conjunction, that my Department would take lightly. We would not license in any circumstances the export of items where to do so would be inconsistent with the consolidated criteria. Those are our guiding principles.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 enables a functioning statute book at the end of the transition period by providing Ministers with the tools to deal with deficiencies in domestic law arising because of our exit from the European Union.

[Gareth Thomas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I will make a bit of progress.

Some hon. Members will recall that this House has already debated and approved legislation to ensure that there is continued functioning of retained EU law in Britain in respect of export controls. The Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were debated here on 25 March 2019 and the Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 were debated here on 13 May 2019.

Those new regulations are necessary because under the Northern Ireland protocol, which forms part of the withdrawal agreement, the EU regulations and directives relating to export control of dual-use items, civilian firearms and goods usable for capital punishment or torture will continue to apply directly to and in Northern Ireland.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He will be aware that under the German presidency of the European Union, new rules have been provisionally agreed, allowing for

“more accountable, competitive and transparent trade of dual-use items.”

Presumably, if the process of application continues, what has been agreed under the German presidency will apply to the rules in Northern Ireland very shortly. There will be one set of export control rules for the rest of the UK under domestic law and a slightly different set very quickly for Northern Ireland. Will the Minister comment on that point?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I am, of course, happy to comment on that point. The shadow Minister is right that Northern Ireland will be subject to slightly different rules than Great Britain. For example, under this instrument, unamended by any future negative statutory instrument that will be introduced, an exporter from Great Britain would require an export licence full-stop, whereas an exporter from Northern Ireland would need to secure one only if the export were, first, from Northern Ireland and, secondly, to the European Union. The technology will be worked on in the European Union, as reflected in article 42N(2).

Going forward, we will correct that under the statutory instrument that I referred to earlier and, indeed, European Union law will apply in Northern Ireland as opposed to in Great Britain, where we will incorporate it into our own law using the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

I continue with my reflections on the draft regulations themselves. The provision of the European Union directive on the intra-Community transfer of defence-related products will also continue to apply to all movement of military goods between Northern Ireland and the EU. The regulations amend provisions of retained EU law to accommodate the Northern Ireland protocol, which is why they are important. Let me explain to Members how that will work. Beginning at 11 pm on 31 December, the export control rules applying in Great Britain will be derived solely from domestic law, as I referred to a moment ago, which will include retained EU law. In contrast, the export control rules applying in Northern Ireland will continue, as I referred to a moment ago, to be derived from EU law, as required by the Northern Ireland protocol.

My Department will continue to be the licensing authority for strategic exports from the whole of the United Kingdom, but exports of such items from Northern Ireland will be done under a licence issued under EU regulations.

[Gareth Thomas]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jayawardena]

No, I will make progress.

To make that work, the draft regulations amend existing legislation. First, they amend the Export Control Order 2008, which has been the centrepiece of domestic export control legislation since April 2009. Secondly, they amend two instruments: the Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were made last year in preparation for EU exit. In addition, they amend the draft Trade in Torture etc. Goods (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations, which were debated here on 8 April last year and approved by both Houses, but have not yet been made. It is necessary to amend them to remove a dependency on the non-existent Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Let me be clear that today’s regulations do no more than is necessary to ensure the continued functioning of export control law, and therefore the continued effective operation of our export control system in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Gareth Thomas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jayawardena]

No, I will make progress; the shadow Minister will be able to make his own remarks shortly.

Without the draft regulations, our ability to control the export of such goods would be undermined. The legislation will ensure that the Secretary of State continues to control exports from all parts of the United Kingdom of dual-use items, firearms and goods that could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Her Majesty’s Government believe that the procedures for assessing licence applications and decision-making processes are robust, and will remain so following the end of the transition period.

The eight criteria used to assess export licence applications, as set out in the consolidated criteria, will remain the same. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence will continue to provide my Department with advice and analysis. A licence, for the avoidance of doubt, would not be granted if to do so would be inconsistent with any of the criteria.

My Department will also continue to provide detailed advice and guidance about export controls, and, at the end of the transition period, to support legitimate exporters. I remind the Committee that these regulations are solely about preparing for the end of the transition and making sure that we have a functioning statute book after the end of the year. These amendments need to happen, and Parliament needs to make sure that the existing controls remain in place. Negotiations about the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union—or, indeed, the wider world—are a separate matter, of course, and play no part in the debate today.

I am sure that the Committee will want to work in the interests of our national security and in support of retaining robust strategic export controls by making sure that the legislation passes; it is essential to the preparation for the end of the transition period. The legislation is necessary, and I commend the motion to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jayawardena]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I must confess that they seemed to stray a bit further than the regulations in front of us. I am sure he will table questions to me in due course in respect of a number of those issues, as he has done to date.

[Gareth Thomas]

On a point of order, Mrs Miller. I would be grateful if you could clarify whether I was at any point out of order in asking those questions of the Minister and expecting a reply from him.

[Gareth Thomas]

I look forward to the Minister’s answers then.

[Mr Jayawardena]

At no point did I say that the hon. Gentleman was out of order; I simply said that he was straying.

I am not going to apportion any blame for the drafting. That is not my job, nor is it my style. Rather, I believe that we should focus on fixing any drafting errors that might have been made. To that end, I welcome the fact that, in order to secure the licensing controls on strategic exports, the Labour party will be supporting the regulations. If these measures were not in place, we would not have the correct controls across the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman asked, why not leave it? Why not leave the wrong conjunction between sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)? I thought I had made this point clear, but let me restate for the record that it would not be consistent with EU law and it would be a breach of the Northern Ireland protocol. That is why we cannot leave it. That is why we wish to bring forward a statutory instrument using the negative procedure. I hope to bring that forward this month, but certainly we will bring it forward as soon as possible.

In terms of any future changes to the regime, we will always consider how we can further improve our system, but we are confident that we have one of the most robust systems in the world, and we do think very hard before licensing any goods so that all licences are always consistent with the consolidated criteria.

I will write to the hon. Gentleman in respect of the number of people who might benefit from an exception, or the number of licences that might be granted before 31 December.

The hon. Gentleman rightly wanted the flavour of a real-life scenario to draw reference to how things might be different between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Let me provide the House with such a scenario. Take Neil and Eleanor, who are both mechanical engineers designing a component typically used in horticultural spraying equipment. They intend to courier their respective printed technical drawings—on paper, non-electronic—to their customer in the European Union, and they know that their customer intends to incorporate those technical drawings into their design schematics for use by a manufacturing plant outside the European Union. The Secretary of State has informed Neil and Eleanor that the type of technology they are working on may be intended for use in connection with the dissemination of a chemical weapon—that is, a WMD purpose.

Neil works in Belfast; Eleanor works in Coventry. The current exception would mean that no export licence is required if the export is from the United Kingdom to the European Union, and the exporter knows that the final destination of the software or technology is the European Union or that processing or working is to be performed on the software or technology in the European Union. The issue that we have identified through the scrutiny of the JCSI is that no export licence is required if the export is from Northern Ireland to the European Union, and the exporter knows that the final destination of the software or technology is the European Union and processing or working is to be performed on the software or technology in the European Union.

That would mean that Neil in Belfast requires an export licence, because the export is from Northern Ireland, the export is to the European Union, the technology will be worked on in the European Union, but the final destination of the technology is not the European Union. Eleanor requires an export licence full stop: the export is from Great Britain, and the exception only applies to exports from Northern Ireland.

The correct exception, once we have brought forward the amending statutory instrument using the negative procedure, will mean that Neil does not require an export licence because the export is from Northern Ireland, the export is to the European Union, and although the final destination is not the EU, the technology will be worked on in there. However, Eleanor would still require an export licence because she is based in Great Britain. I hope that clarifies the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.