Trade Bill
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Fox
My understanding is that HMRC was given extra resource in advance, before we reached this point. It seems strange that we do not already collect this data. If we want better-informed policy, we need better datasets. It is merely a sensible option for any Government to collect this data as widely as possible, so that we operate on the basis of better information.
Before I further explain the process, this is a good juncture to correct some of the misunderstandings that seem to have grown, deliberately or otherwise, around the Trade Bill. As I have explained, the Bill contains two powers that allow the Government to amend primary legislation: the power in clause 2 to implement the trade agreements that the UK adopts; and the power in clause 7 to allow HMRC to collect the export information that the hon. Lady has just mentioned. Both these powers are limited in scope and restricted in their use. Contrary to the belief of some in this House and beyond, seemingly including the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, this Bill does not legislate for powers that could be used when implementing new free trade agreements with countries with which the EU does not have a free trade agreement before exit day. An article in The Guardian—I do not avidly read it, but this was brought to my attention—written by him incorrectly asserted that the Government would only be obliged to present the text of new trade agreements under the convention of the Ponsonby rule. As I mentioned earlier, the scrutiny of new agreements requiring ratification is ensured by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the 2010 Act proceeds by negative resolution and it is not open to any debate, any scrutiny, any vote and may not even be amended? Therefore, the sort of scrutiny that most Members of this place would expect to take place for any new trade agreements will not occur in the way he has led the House to believe.
Dr Fox
This Bill is not about trade agreements; I can only explain it to the hon. Gentleman—I cannot understand it for him. This Bill is about continuity of existing agreements. In any case, the 2010 Act effectively gives the Commons the power to block ratification, notwithstanding the fact that we have already scrutinised these agreements in the past. He ought to know that, as the 2010 Act was passed by the Labour Government and he voted for it.
There is no attempt here to bypass parliamentary scrutiny or to obtain sweeping new authority for the Government over this country’s trading structures. Rather, the Government seek powers in clause 2 that we think necessary for us fully to implement in UK law non-tariff obligations of the transitioned existing EU-third country trade agreements that we adopt. Any tariff-related obligations in such transitioned agreements will be implemented using powers conferred by the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which had its Second Reading in this House yesterday.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House recognises that on leaving the European Union, whether or not the UK concludes a new long-term customs union with the EU, it will need effective legislation to implement agreements with partner countries corresponding to international trade agreements of the European Union in place before the UK’s exit, to implement procurement obligations arising from the UK becoming a member of the Government Procurement Agreement in its own right, to establish a Trade Remedies Authority to deliver the new UK trade remedies framework, and to establish powers for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect and disclose data on exporters, but declines to give a Second Reading to the Trade Bill because it fails to set out proper procedures for Parliamentary consultation, scrutiny, debate and approval of future international trade agreements, fails to protect the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty in the implementation of those trade agreements previously negotiated by the European Union and in respect of changes to existing government procurement regulations arising from the UK’s or other countries’ accession to the Government Procurement Agreement, fails to establish sufficient scrutiny procedures to replace those that have pertained while the UK has been a member of the European Union, fails to guarantee that European Union standards and rights will be protected in future trade agreements, and fails to render the Trade Remedies Authority answerable to Parliament or representative of the full range of stakeholders.”
May I take this opportunity to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all those in this place who in their various ways serve the public, a very happy new year?
Our country is in the throes of an extraordinary change in our constitutional arrangements. At this stage, no one can be entirely certain what the structure of our future relations with the European Union will be, but the Labour party is clear that the country cannot be left without the capacity to defend our manufacturing industry against unfair trading practices. Indeed, many Opposition Members will wish that the Government had been more keenly aware of the need for strong action on trade defence when our steel industry was put into crisis by the unfair dumping of Chinese steel, or when the United States took entirely unjustified action against Bombardier in Northern Ireland.
The need for a Bill to establish a trade remedies authority, to establish our independent membership of the WTO government procurement agreement, to enable us to maintain strong trading ties with partner countries that have had historical agreements with us through the EU, and to establish the power to collect and share trade information—all are uncontroversial requirements. However, the way in which the Government have gone about this process is not uncontroversial; it is quite the opposite.
On the face of it, this is a modest little Bill that has a lot to be modest about. The four things that the Bill does, it does badly. But what is worse is that the one thing it absolutely should have done well—namely, to provide appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of our country’s trade agreements—it fails to do entirely.
We were repeatedly told that the Trade Bill would provide the basis for the country’s future trade policy once we had left the EU. To quote the Queen’s Speech policy paper from last June:
“The Bill will put in place the essential and necessary legislative framework to allow the UK to operate its own independent trade policy upon exit from the European Union.”
It does not do that. Instead, it represents yet another attempt by the Government to appropriate to themselves powers that should by rights be afforded to Parliament.
I must acknowledge my bias: I voted to remain in the EU and I think our country has embarked on an act of economic self-harm. But I am 100% certain that those of our fellow citizens who did vote to leave the EU did not vote for sovereign powers to be taken away from the bureaucrats, as they regarded them, in Brussels, only to be handed over to the Secretary of State for International Trade. They thought—indeed, they were told—that we were taking back control to our sovereign Parliament, yet the Bill contains Henry VIII powers that explicitly give Ministers the right to amend primary legislation.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat anomalous that for the past 18 months we have talked about nothing but the sovereignty of Parliament, yet we as parliamentarians now have to beg for a role in our future trade arrangements?
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point, and it is a criticism that I hope will be prosecuted fully in Committee.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend when he says that he is 100% certain about what people thought they were voting for, because leaving the customs union was not on the ballot paper at the referendum. Can I persuade him to encourage our Front-Bench colleagues to support participation in the customs union because, as he will know, that is the view of 85% of the Labour party membership?
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I commend him for the article he published this morning on LabourList, which I thought was an excellent exposé of the Bill. To answer his specific question, once the UK leaves the European Union, it cannot remain in the EU customs union, because by definition when a state leaves the European Union all EU rules cease to apply to it, as set out in article 50. The customs union is an institution of the European Union; it has its legal basis in the European treaties and its functioning is set out in EU regulations.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Barry Gardiner
I will happily give way to my hon. Friend once I have answered our hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie).
As we will no longer be a signatory to the European treaties and no longer come under their territorial scope, we cannot formally be a member of the EU’s customs union. As the EU’s treaties currently stand, only EU member states, and territories attached to those states, are actually members of the customs union. However, it is possible for the UK to enter into a customs union with the EU after Brexit, whereby we choose to have a joined external tariff and no tariffs on trade between the EU and the UK. That would, in effect, mirror the current arrangements. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, like me, will have been interested to find that provision to do just that was incorporated in clause 31 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which we debated last night.
Barry Gardiner
No, I am not telling the House that at all. I am happy to try to answer not only the letter of the Secretary of State’s question, but the spirit. Those on the Labour Front Bench have always tried to make it clear that we recognise the benefits of the single market to this country, and the benefits that traditionally the customs union has brought and that a customs union could bring. However, we are focused in the negotiations on achieving the benefits, rather than putting red lines around the structures, which is what the Government have done, and ruling those off the table.
Several hon. Members rose—
Barry Gardiner
I will make a little progress, because that was a very interesting diversion, but one that we will leave there.
Barry Gardiner
I will press on.
The Bill fails utterly to establish the legislative framework for the UK’s future trade policy, which it leaves entirely in the hands of Ministers. It also risks undermining the rights of the devolved Administrations through its undue centralisation of powers in Westminster. The impact assessment accompanying the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which the House debated only yesterday, confirms that this Trade Bill was to provide the key measures necessary
“to build a future trade policy for the UK once we leave the EU.”
We were looking forward to a full debate today on the future of the powers that we will have repatriated from Brussels, and how we might like to use them to make Britain what the Secretary of State calls
“a great trading nation once again”.
Some of us believe that we still are a great trading nation, but clearly he does not.
Yet somewhere along the way the Secretary of State seems to have lost his nerve. Instead of the legislative framework for a future trade policy that we were promised, he has left us with this hollowed out little embarrassment of a Bill, which extends to just six pages and four schedules. We have no more than a vague suggestion that at some point in future we might return to the business of discussing whether Parliament may or may not play a role in overseeing our relations with trading partners around the world.
Angela Smith
I thank my hon. Friend. His earlier comments about the UK being unable to remain a member of the customs union after leaving the European Union are surely incorrect. Surely it would be possible for the UK to negotiate fresh membership of the customs union, in the same way that Turkey has done. Equally, surely it would be possible to negotiate membership of the single market on departure, in the same way that Norway and Iceland have done. It is entirely possible for the UK to renegotiate membership of both.
Barry Gardiner
I am very happy to respond to my hon. Friend, and I understand the distinctions she is making, but she will also understand what I have already set out about the force of the treaties, which is simply a matter of law. We will not be bound by the treaties and therefore we would not be able to continue as a member of the EU, and therefore as a member of the EU customs union, although, as I have pointed out, we could then come back and form a customs union with the European Union.
My hon. Friend asked specifically about Turkey’s relationship with the European Union. Turkey has a customs union agreement with the EU customs union, but it is not a member of the EU customs union—she should be aware of that—and there is therefore an asymmetry in the way in which its trade relations are conducted. The EU conducts the deals and agreements with third-party countries on behalf of Turkey that set its tariffs and quotas. Indeed, that has caused Turkey great concern, because while the Mexico-EU agreement means that Mexico can import cars into Turkey tariff-free, there is no reciprocal liberalisation of Mexico’s markets for Turkey’s textiles, and Turkey is extremely aggrieved about that.
Were we to have the same arrangement, we could be in a position in which the European Union concluded an agreement with the United States—for example, perhaps along the lines of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which many Members would have concerns about—to the detriment of this country but the advantage of the European Union, which we would have no control over, and without liberalising US markets to British exports. That would be an extremely bad deal indeed. I trust that fully answers my hon. Friend’s question.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Barry Gardiner
I will not give way again on that point.
International trade agreements have the status of treaties under international law. They cannot be repealed in the same way that domestic legislation can be repealed, and they create real and binding obligations on future generations to uphold their provisions. In a word, they are serious undertakings that demand the most rigorous procedural safeguards if they are not to cause lasting harm. As we take back responsibility for trade policy from Brussels, do hon. Members really think we should end up with less scrutiny and accountability than we currently have as a member of the EU?
My party made a manifesto commitment to ensure proper transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of all future trade and investment deals. That means parliamentary approval of negotiating mandates for future trade arrangements; proper consultation with trade union, industry and civil society stakeholders; comprehensive impact assessments of the likely social, economic and environmental risks; a new scrutiny committee to fill the vacuum created by the loss of the existing powers over trade agreements; unrestricted access to the consolidated texts of trade and investment treaties as they are being formulated; the most rigorous ratification process, with a debate and vote on the Floor of the House—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is chuntering away from a sedentary position, saying, “That’s not what this Bill is about.” My point is that that is what it should be about, and it is what the Government promised it would be about. That is why, when it comes to the new agreements that the Bill is creating, we need the powers that I am talking about.
Barry Gardiner
I will give way a little later to both the right hon. Lady and the hon. and learned Lady, but in the meantime I propose to make a little progress.
There is nothing particularly remarkable about any of the strictures that we laid down in our manifesto. Many other countries around the world have such procedures to exercise oversight over their Executives. New Zealand requires its Government to present national interest analyses before its Parliament. Australia has a separate joint scrutiny committee on treaties. Even in the EU, Germany requires all trade treaties to undergo a process of scrutiny by parliamentary committee before ratification can take place.
Currently, the Council of Ministers sets a negotiating mandate and the Commission is charged with implementing it. Our representatives in the European Parliament debate it and scrutinise it in the trade committee. The resulting treaty is then put under the powerful microscope of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee in this House. Once we leave the EU, all those institutional levels of accountability are stripped away and we will fall back on the 1924 Ponsonby rule. It was interesting to hear the Secretary of State say, “No, no, it’s all about the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.” Does he not realise that CRAGA actually gives legislative effect to the Ponsonby rule, an arcane procedure from the last century that allows our Government to ratify a trade agreement—an international trade treaty—by simply laying the text before the House for 21 sitting days, with no need for a debate or vote? That is simply not good enough in a modern democracy. Hon. Members hold this House’s dignity very cheap indeed if they vote tonight to govern ourselves after the fashion of a tinpot dictatorship.
The Government have a woeful record on transparency and democratic oversight when it comes to international trade agreements, so it pains me to remind the House of the exchange of letters, which were revealed just before Christmas, between the Department and the Office of the United States Trade Representative, in which the Secretary of State gave assurances to President Trump’s Administration that he will deny Members of this House access to information on the substance of talks held in the UK-US trade working group. The letter says that the following approach will be taken:
“Proposals, accompanying explanatory material, emails related to the substance of the working group, and other information, exchanged in the context of the working group, are provided and will be held in confidence unless otherwise jointly decided.”
Yet when the Secretary of State responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who asked a trenchant question about the need for transparency, he said that of course he believed there should be full transparency. In fact, this obsession with secrecy should not be taken for a prudent desire to conceal our negotiating hand from the Americans. The provisions agreed by the Secretary of State are expressly designed to deny British MPs and the wider public any knowledge of what has already been discussed with the United States’ representatives. He will not tell us what he has already told them.
Anna Soubry
Talking of telling the House about policy, will the hon. Gentleman now tell us Labour’s Front-Bench policy on our future relationship with the European Union when it comes to the customs union? How does that differ from the Government’s policy, because I suggest that the Labour Front-Bench team is in agreement with the Government’s Front-Bench team?
Barry Gardiner
The right hon. Lady is free to suggest whatever she likes. I have dealt with the customs union at great length this afternoon and made our position quite clear.
All information exchanged between the UK and US officials will be kept secret until four years after the working group has been concluded. That is why hon. Members should not take on trust any verbal reassurances that the Government or the Secretary of State might give this afternoon. One has to establish good faith to earn trust.
Vicky Ford
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the subject of transparency?
Barry Gardiner
On transparency, yes. The hon. Lady has been very persistent, so I will give way.
Vicky Ford
If I may, I want to take the hon. Gentleman back to his suggestion that the European Parliament is somehow a far more transparent organisation when it comes to discussions on trade deals, especially trade deals with the US. My memory is that the discussions with trade negotiators and MEPs were held behind closed doors, with only trade committee members and committee chairs present. The papers held by the European Parliament were all kept behind closed doors and were not transparent. I have heard the Minister say that he wants us to have a transparent process in which the House will be consulted and able to scrutinise future trade deals in a better manner.
Barry Gardiner
Look, the hon. Lady is of course right that the European Union held a lot of those discussions in private, particularly over TTIP. However, she may be unaware though that although European Members of Parliament were able to access the text of the TTIP agreement, this Secretary of State refused for nine months to set up a reading room so that Members of this House could access the very same information that was available to her colleagues in the European Union.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman has made a very powerful case for more scrutiny of future trade agreements by this Parliament, but it is not the only Parliament in the United Kingdom—there is a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Parliament, and, I hope that, eventually, the Northern Ireland Assembly will be up and running again. With the CETA process, we saw the powerful influence of not only national and regional Parliaments in the European Union, but provincial Parliaments in Canada. Will the Labour party support such influence for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Barry Gardiner
I will deal with issues around devolution later in my speech. Indeed, that is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) will be addressing in his winding-up speech.
Having set the context, let us look at the detail. The Bill’s opening clause sets the tone for the power grab that is to come. It gives Ministers the power to implement regulatory changes as a consequence of any country acceding to or seceding from the WTO’s government procurement agreement. This is not a temporary power. It is not simply to facilitate our transition from a member under the wing of the EU to a member in our own right, as the explanatory notes to the Bill claim, but a power in perpetuity without the requirement for any scrutiny by Parliament.
The Government will use the sweeping powers of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to push through the UK’s independent membership of the GPA without a vote in Parliament. The Bill confirms that any future changes to the terms of the GPA will go the same way. We can talk about the merits of the GPA—I am sure that we will find much common cause across the Dispatch Boxes—but the Secretary of State said that we would be acceding on the “existing terms of participation”, if I wrote that down correctly. That is something that Members should be free to scrutinise and debate. The United States, Canada, South Korea and Japan have all put annexes to their schedules for the GPA that allow them to set aside and disapply regulations on behalf of small businesses and other organisations. That is something that we might wish to consider. It would be quite proper for us to do so, to boost trade for our small businesses, but the Bill, as currently formulated, would not allow that.
I have to confess that when I first looked at the GPA, I wondered what material difference this might make to British business. I was quite impressed to find that the Government’s explanatory notes showed that the GPA opened up £1.3 trillion of contracts to UK business—we should all rejoice in that—but when I checked the Bill’s impact assessment, I learned that the total cross-border earnings of our businesses from GPA contracts outside the UK is just £1.2 billion, which is less than 1% of that amount. I also learned that the total earnings by foreign companies from the £68 billion of GPA contracts inside the UK was £16.7 billion, which is about 24.5%. Will the Minister explain what the saving to the public purse was from this procurement agreement that merited £16.7 billion going to foreign companies while just £1.2 billion came back to the UK? There might well be a very good answer, but is this not precisely the sort of issue on which Parliament should have a proper role of scrutiny and holding the Executive to account? Of course, the Bill denies us the capacity to do so.
Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State the most far-reaching powers to implement new international trade agreements without the need for even a debate in Parliament. As his Department has confirmed, the clause includes the Henry VIII power to modify primary legislation without a vote. On that point, we were treated to the extraordinary spectacle of the Secretary of State resorting to the letters page of a national newspaper to deny what is printed in black and white—actually in black and green—in his own legislation. He must have been piqued by a number of articles in response to the Bill’s publication in November that accused him of appropriating powers that should, by rights, lie with Parliament. He responded on The Guardian website on the evening of 20 November, saying:
“In an editorial (13 November) you claim that the trade bill is ‘effectively granting ministers the power to write law behind parliament’s back’ with ‘Henry VIII powers’. This claim is repeated in a column by George Monbiot (18 November). This is untrue. The powers in the bill will only allow for amendment of secondary legislation covering existing trade agreements, and secondary legislation is still subject to parliamentary oversight.”
Yet it was not The Guardian that was wrong; the Secretary of State was wrong. He knew that he was wrong, although he did not correct his remarks, because clause 2 of the Trade Bill, which he had published just two weeks earlier, states quite clearly that the powers in the Bill make provision not only for the amendment of secondary legislation, but for “modifying primary legislation”. Lest there should be any doubt about this, the delegated powers memorandum published by the Secretary of State’s Department to accompany the Bill, which was quoted by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) with such devastating effect earlier, states on its very first page:
“The Bill contains 6 individual provisions containing delegated powers. Two of these, clauses 2(1) and 7(3), include a Henry VIII power.”
This was not the case of a Cabinet Minister misspeaking or being ambushed in a broadcast interview; this was a written communication that the Secretary of State placed in a national newspaper in the cold light of day that contradicted plain fact and the considered explanation of his own officials. I will happily give way to the Secretary of State if he would care to come to the Dispatch Box and explain himself by putting on the public record why he chose to suggest that there are no Henry VIII powers in this Bill when his own Department had already confirmed the opposite to be the case. I cannot claim to have served with Henry VIII. I cannot claim that Henry VIII was a friend of mine. But, to misquote Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s remark to Dan Quayle, I can say, “Secretary of State, you are no Henry VIII. This Bill is an affront to the dignity of your office and to the authority of this House.”
Clause 2 provides the Secretary of State with unprecedented powers to implement international trade agreements without a vote in Parliament. It is perhaps the most egregiously anti-democratic provision of the Bill, in that it allows the Secretary of State to engage in secret negotiations with a trading partner of the EU, to lay the results of those negotiations before Parliament without the need for a debate or a vote, and to proceed to incorporate the resulting treaty into UK law without the need for a vote either.
The Government have tried to justify this power grab with the sham argument that these are simply roll-over agreements—existing agreements that are just being grandfathered. They claim that the corresponding agreements between 60-plus countries and the EU have already been through the process of scrutiny, meaning that the UK’s new agreements can go through on the nod. Yet the Government have been forced to admit that the UK’s new trade agreements are legally distinct from those previously negotiated by the EU. They are new agreements in international law. If we allow the Bill to go through as it stands, the Secretary of State, as the Government have acknowledged, will be given carte blanche to agree substantively new obligations with third countries and to implement them without a vote in Parliament.
The Government are aware of the magnitude of what they are attempting. The delegated powers memorandum could scarcely disguise its shame with regard to this part of the Bill. It says:
“It is recognised that Parliament will want considerable assurances from the Government that this power will not be used beyond what is necessary to ensure a seamless transition of the agreements in scope.”
The Government have given that assurance, but they cannot deny that the power is there. In the next breath, the memorandum claims, apparently without irony:
“The Department considers that this power is appropriate for the negative procedure.”
The negative procedure is the least rigorous procedure available to this House, as it allows the Government to bypass the need for a debate or a vote, or the possibility of amendment—there is nothing.
I ask the Minister to come clean and confirm to the House that the delegated powers memorandum is correct. Will he assure us that the Government will bring forward their own amendment in Committee to ensure that these new internationally binding agreements must go through a due process of proper scrutiny by Parliament, rather than being signed off by Ministers without a vote?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I applaud my hon. Friend’s speech. The Government are making out that this is all about roll-overs and business as usual. Does he accept that what will actually happen is that countries will want to negotiate new terms of trade because we will be a small minnow compared with the EU giant? What is more, when an EU quota is involved, countries within Europe such as Spain may want to take some of our quota. We will keep our quota only if we give better terms of trade, with lower standards, lower prices and a worse deal for us. That is why we must have scrutiny in this place.
Barry Gardiner
The honest answer to my hon. Friend is that I do not know, although I share his suspicion that that might well be the case. The point is that the Bill shows that the Government’s expectation is that these are not simply roll-over agreements and that, precisely as he suggests, third countries may demand additional features in new agreements. On that point, he is absolutely right and the Secretary of State is absolutely wrong.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend will know that trade agreements require negotiation—it takes two to tango. This Parliament will be asked to delegate powers to the Secretary of State and the Executive to make changes to bilateral agreements with countries that already have EU bilateral agreements, so decisions that might involve sectors such as the Scotch whisky industry being thrown under a bus to protect other sectors will not come to this House.
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that that is a possibility, but while I have disagreements with the Secretary of State, do I think he is so foolish as to throw the Scotch whisky sector under a bus? No, I do not, because it is a very important player in our economy, as my hon. Friend knows. However, the point he makes is entirely right: it is possible that new interpolations in old agreements may do damage to other sectors. The point remains that this House—I repeat, this House—is the appropriate place for that to be scrutinised.
Clauses 5 and 6 deal with the establishment of the Trade Remedies Authority. We of course welcome the establishment of a new authority as an essential pillar of our international trade policy to ensure that British manufacturers are not exposed to dumping or other countries’ unfair trading practices.
Gareth Snell
I tried to push the Secretary of State on this point earlier, but my hon. Friend may be able to help. It is reported in The Daily Telegraph today that the economic interest test that the Government will apply will balance potential trade remedies against the impact that they may have on the wider negotiations for a free trade agreement. We could therefore have the perverse situation that, much as with the Scotch whisky industry, the ceramic industry in my constituency could be put to one side in the interests of the greater good of a trade deal with China. I do not believe that that is a good idea, and I am sure my hon. Friend does not, but the Government will not say so.
Barry Gardiner
I was very interested to hear the Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend’s question. It was a feat of Dispatch Box prestidigitation such as I have not seen for many years, because the Secretary of State appeared to agree with my hon. Friend while in fact disagreeing. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As we saw with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which we debated yesterday—that Bill sets out the role and powers of the Trade Remedies Authority—the Government certainly envisage a key role for not only the lesser duty rule, but such economic impact assessments. Of course we must conduct economic impact assessments—I know my hon. Friend does not disagree with that—and a balanced decision must then be taken, but, again, it is right that the House should scrutinise those things and ensure that they are genuinely in the wider interest. In particular, hon. Members with specific constituency interests—the ceramics industry; the Scotch whisky industry; the steel industry—should have the opportunity, at the appropriate point, for scrutiny.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
While the TRA will clearly play a very important role, does my hon. Friend agree that it cannot take a balanced decision unless it includes a wide range of stakeholders, such as the trade union movement, producers and representatives of the devolved Governments?
Barry Gardiner
I cannot tell you how pleased I am to have taken that intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mindful of your strictures on time, as I always am, I had actually excised a paragraph about that from my speech, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his well-made point.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. While the hon. Gentleman is addressing my strictures on time, I know that he will be thinking about concluding quite soon, because he would not want to be in danger of having taken even more of the House’s time than the Secretary of State.
Barry Gardiner
Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State spoke for quite long enough; I will try to beat him by a short head.
The House will recall that the consultation on the Trade Remedies Authority ended on the evening of 6 November, but by early morning on 7 November, hard copies of the Trade Bill were already being delivered to Parliament. One can only suppose that the Secretary of State did not receive the updated consultation principles that were issued to all Departments in 2016, which state:
“Take consultation responses into account when taking policy forward…Do not ask questions about issues on which you already have a final view.”
Worse still, the Secretary of State has chosen to appropriate to himself the power to appoint all the key postholders of the TRA without any constraints on their representative function—that point echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) was just saying. He will even decide without limit how much those people will be paid. The Bill creates a lapdog, not an industrious and independent guard dog.
Labour believes that the Trade Remedies Authority should be formally constituted, so that it is fully representative of the key stakeholders affected by unfair trading practices. That means the experts within business and the trade unions who face the reality of dumping and unfair state subsidies as an existential threat to their jobs and industries, not a côterie of Rabbit’s friends and relations.
Finally, I must alert the House to the threat that the Bill presents to the devolved Administrations. Today’s international trade agreements reach far behind the border into the policy space of national, regional and local authorities. The Welsh Government have already established that several of the clauses in the Trade Bill pertain to areas covered by its legislative competence and have found restrictions on Welsh Ministers in the Bill that they consider inappropriate. The Welsh Government have therefore stated that whether they consent to the Bill will depend on the Government’s response to amendments tabled to address those shortcomings. The undue concentration of powers in Westminster to the detriment of the devolved Administrations mirrors the undue appropriation of powers by the Secretary of State to the detriment of this Parliament.
This Bill fails to establish the proper framework that would allow our country to develop a sound, legitimate and properly scrutinised trade policy for the future. Instead, we are faced with another sordid power grab by a Government forced to hide their own weakness behind a legislative veil that is technically and morally incompetent. The Opposition believe that the British people deserve better. That is why we have tabled the reasoned amendment. If it is not accepted, we will vote against the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Oral Answers to Questions
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Fox
Not all that many people bounce into my office, although they regularly bounce out of it. We are an incredibly optimistic Department and we look to the future with great confidence. Let me give some figures: the most recent time we advertised jobs in the Department, there were 1,698 applicants for the 92 jobs available. That suggests to me that there is a great deal of optimism, even in our civil service.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is indeed an optimist, and it is good to hear him so upbeat about all the trade opportunities that he thinks await us in the post-Brexit world. Perhaps he can explain why, when the Red Book shows trade in the world economy increasing year-on-year by 4% over the next five years, it shows the UK’s export growth decline from 3.4% next year to 1.2% in 2019, and then plummet to just 0.1% in each of the following three years. Is the Secretary of State perhaps an optimist who can find no rational grounds for his optimism?
Dr Fox
It is nice to see that “Project Fear” never dies. Rather than going on projections, let me tell the hon. Gentleman what our economy has actually done. He is right that global trade has been growing at around 3%, but UK exports have been up 13.1% in the past year—in goods they are up by more than 16%. That is the real performance of the UK economy. There is incredible slack in our ability to export further and we should be encouraging British exporters to do so.
Dr Fox
I know my hon. Friend takes a strong interest in this, and he makes a valuable point. As the host of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting next April, the UK is committed to highlighting the value of, and increasing, intra-Commonwealth trade. Businesses will have an opportunity to meet in a three-day forum that will see a diverse range of sectors represented. This will help us promote our vision for global Britain and to celebrate and grow the vital intra-Commonwealth trade that he mentions.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
America’s Trade Secretary Wilbur Ross told the CBI this month that the essential precondition of a trade deal with the USA was to move our regulation standards and environmental protections away from the EU and closer to those of the Americans. Last week, Michel Barnier said that the essential precondition of a good trade deal with the EU was to keep our regulation standards and environmental protections close to the European model. The Government say their top priority is securing barrier-free trade with the EU, so does the Secretary of State accept that he can have American cake or European gateau, but he cannot have both?
Oral Answers to Questions
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Fox
As I have said, we first have to get our trading schedules agreed and then we have to agree free trade agreements with third countries, which involves the division of quotas. We are making good progress on that. We want a comprehensive agreement, because that is in the interests of all concerned. However, the Government are preparing contingencies should there be no agreement, which is the only responsible thing for a Government to do.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows full well that a technical rectification would disadvantage other members, which is why seven member states of the WTO have written to Azevêdo specifically setting out that that is unacceptable to them. On 6 July, the Secretary of State said that he was confident that a technical rectification of WTO schedules would be
“smooth and fully understood by our trading partners.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2017; Vol. 626, c. 1364.]
Well, it is not. What is he going to do about that? What assessment has he made of the delays and of the impact on our businesses that will result from that?
Dr Fox
I do not anticipate that that will happen. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand what the process is, or what a negotiation is. It is quite clear that our first offer is not the final thing that we expect to be accepted. For example, we have no agreement yet on what will happen with unused quotas or aggregate measures of support. Those issues will be dealt with during the negotiation—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman likes to multitask, but being able to speak and listen simultaneously is not among his abilities.
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, Sir; it is always good to have you keeping me up to pace.
Recent reports suggest that Boeing provided Monarch Airlines with 45 Boeing 737 MAX jets at a cut price and that Boeing used a complex sale and leaseback deal to provide Monarch with more than £100 million in cash against a paper profit. Given the Secretary of State’s earlier commitment to trade defence remedies, why has he left it to me to write to the EU Commissioners to ask them to investigate this as a matter of potential illegal dumping and anti-competitive behaviour?
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
I am happy to look at the precise nature of the hon. Gentleman’s allegation, but I have to say that the Government’s response on Monarch has been exemplary. We have devoted an incredible amount of resources to getting tens of thousands of stranded British subjects abroad back to this country. The process was led incredibly well by the Department for Transport, and we should be proud of the Government’s efforts in helping the victims of Monarch.
Export Licensing: High Court Judgment
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and early sight of it. I know that he and the whole House will agree that the war in Yemen is a humanitarian tragedy. Thousands of people, including women and children, have been its victims both directly and indirectly through the loss of life-saving infrastructures such as hospitals and water supplies. All of us should, and do, mourn that keenly.
The question for the High Court was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that there was no risk that British weapons might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law. Since the bombing of Yemen began in March 2015, the UK has licensed more than £3.3 billion of arms to the Saudi regime, including: £2.2 billion of ML10 licences, dealing with aircraft, helicopters and drones; £1.1 billion of ML4 licences, dealing with grenades, bombs, missiles and countermeasures; and £430,000-worth of ML6 licences, dealing with armoured vehicles and tanks.
The Secretary of State knows that indiscriminate use of air strikes, the destruction of a country’s means of food production and the targeting of civilians are all classed as war crimes under international humanitarian law. Does he recall that a United Nations panel of experts reported in January 2016 that Saudi Arabian forces had engaged in “widespread and systematic” targeting of civilians? Does he recall that, on 21 July last year, the Government corrected their previous declarations that they had no evidence of any violations, and that the Foreign Secretary stated in September last year that the Government’s new position was that they had been unable to make an assessment and that the Saudi authorities were best placed to make such an assessment? Does he accept that the Foreign Secretary was wrong to franchise out our obligation in this way, and that we, not the Saudis, have the duty to assess whether there is a risk that British arms sold to the Saudis might be used in contravention of international humanitarian law?
Does the Secretary of State recall that evidence revealed in the High Court in February this year showed that the civil servant at the head of export control had provided advice to a previous Secretary of State recommending that the UK suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia
“given the gaps in knowledge about Saudi operations”?
Can he explain to the House why that recommendation was overruled by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who sits alongside him?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Committees on Arms Export Controls should be set up in this Parliament without delay so that export licensing for arms sales can come under the necessary parliamentary scrutiny?
Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s judgment did not seek to rule on whether the Government were correct in concluding that there was no clear risk of a serious breach of international humanitarian law, but rather on whether, in so concluding, they had reached a decision that could be considered rational, given the procedures they had adopted and the evidence they had considered? Does he further accept that if those procedures themselves were defective, or the evidence the Government considered was insufficient, misleading or even simply not comprehensive, it follows that the decision, however rational within its own parameters, could be deeply flawed, and this country might be at grave risk of violating our obligations in international humanitarian law?
The Government relied on material they brought forward only in closed hearing. That evidence could not be seen or heard by the claimant—the Campaign Against Arms Trade—or its lawyers, Leigh Day. As such, the court ruling that the Government’s decision was a rational one, given the procedures and evidence they considered, was based on secret evidence, which it was impossible to challenge. Does the Secretary of State accept that the court judgment makes specific reference to the substantial body of evidence presented in open session, which in fact suggests that a clear risk does exist that British arms might be used in violation of international humanitarian law? Will he agree to make the evidence that was available only in closed session available to Members of this House on Privy Council terms or, indeed, to the Intelligence and Security Committee?
Does the Secretary of State agree that we would all wish this country not only to adopt the highest ethical standards and controls but to be seen to adopt them, and that it would be helpful if he could now give his assurance to the House that it is his considered view that not only were the Government rational in adopting the view they did, given the procedures they followed and the evidence they considered, but that there is, to his certain knowledge, no risk whatever that UK arms might be used by Saudi Arabia in the Yemen war in any way that might constitute a violation of our obligations in international humanitarian law?
Dr Fox
May I say, first, that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Yemen is indeed a humanitarian disaster that is begging for a political solution, to enable us to carry out our diplomatic efforts and our humanitarian efforts? I doubt whether anyone in the House would disagree with that.
The hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in terms of what the court case was about. There were three grounds of challenge in court: first, failure to ask the correct questions and to make sufficient inquiries; secondly, failure to apply the suspension mechanism; and, thirdly, irrationally concluding that there was no clear risk under Criterion 2c. All these grounds have been dismissed by the court.
The hon. Gentleman makes the point about targeting. As a former Defence Secretary, I say to him that the MOD has gone to the nth degree to improve the ability of the Saudis to target more effectively, including through training by UK personnel. That is one of the biggest advances we have helped the Saudis to make in this.
The hon. Gentleman says that the UN and the NGOs had set out their own reservations about what had happened, but as the judgment made clear, they did not have sight of all the information that the judges were able to look at. He said there were gaps in the Government’s knowledge, but the court again made it clear that the Government had not only the ability to assess what the gaps in that knowledge might have been, but the appropriate means of redressing that. I remind him that the criteria we operate are part of the EU consolidated criteria—they are not UK Government unilateral criteria.
I take exception to the hon. Gentleman’s final point. I simply do not accept that if we have closed sessions it somehow makes the judgment less valid. I do not accept that we cannot have closed sessions that protect our national security or the personnel involved in our national security. Our sources need to be protected. I listened to the argument he makes but I simply cannot bring myself to accept it.
Exiting the European Union and Global Trade
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
First, I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to PC Keith Palmer and all the other victims who suffered on that fateful day in March when this debate was last scheduled.
The Secretary of State is at the Dispatch Box fielding for the first time since the creation of his Department almost a year ago a debate on Government trade policy in Government time. It is not exactly normal practice for Trade Ministers to hasten to the Dispatch Box when the country has just posted one of the worst sets of balance of payments figures in its recorded history. Although I admire the right hon. Gentleman’s chutzpah, I am not entirely convinced about his timing. The figures released just last week by the Office for National Statistics show that in quarter 1, the UK’s current account deficit was £16.9 billion—a widening of £4.8 billion from a deficit of £12.1 billion in the previous quarter—most of which is due to the widening of the trade deficit. Despite sterling being so low, exports increased by only £1.7 billion, whereas imported goods increased by £4.3 billion—a widening of £2.6 billion.
James Duddridge
When we are importing more than we are exporting, surely it is easier to get a deal with our European colleagues, whose interest appears to be in continuing to export to us.
Barry Gardiner
I want us to get a deal. Of course we want the best deal for this country, but the hon. Gentleman has to take on board the fact that since the referendum decision our country’s currency has depreciated by 12%. I trust that that is not something that he feels sanguine about.
Dr Fox
Some sectors will respond quickly to devaluation. For example, in food and drink there has been a 7.3% increase in our exports in this quarter. Why, in the light of the uncertainty the hon. Gentleman describes, does he think the figure for foreign direct investment in Britain has been at an all-time record in the past year?
Barry Gardiner
Let me be absolutely clear: we welcome foreign direct investment in this country—of course we do. We want people to be investing in our jobs, our economy and our future—
Barry Gardiner
Perhaps if I can finish responding to the Secretary of State’s intervention, at an appropriate juncture the hon. Gentleman might catch my eye.
There is no difference between the Secretary of State and me on those matters. In fairness, I will say that in the past 50 years there have been 15 sets of quarterly balance of payments figures that have been worse than last week’s, and one of them was under a Labour Government, just after the global financial crisis. The other 14 have all been in the past five years, under the Conservatives.
It would be mean of me to give the right hon. Gentleman too hard a slapdown because the Chancellor has been doing it so effectively on behalf of us all. Only yesterday, we read that the Chancellor is demanding that the Secretary of State prove the case that our ability to strike trade deals after Brexit will make up for losing tariff-free access to the EU. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is being asked to justify his job as the Secretary of State for International Trade once leaving the customs union gives us the competence—perhaps in this case I should say the right—to negotiate our own independent trade agreements.
Barry Gardiner
I will, in a little while.
A year on from the referendum, a year on from the Government’s announcement that they were taking back competence in international trade negotiations, the Cabinet is still divided on what it has all been about. That is extraordinary. The country is crying out for leadership, and all its current leaders can do is sit around the Cabinet table plotting who amongst them should be their next leader. A year on, what has been achieved?
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman is busy asking the Government what their position is. We have set that out very clearly: out of the single market, out of the customs union, and making trade deals. As he speaks for the Opposition, perhaps he can now clarify what their position is. After the election, having fought on a manifesto containing a clear commitment to leave the European Union, Labour’s leader and shadow Chancellor said, “We are leaving the single market. We are leaving the customs union.” The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said, “We are leaving the single market. We are leaving the customs union.” But when the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and his colleague the shadow Brexit Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), were interviewed, they never confirmed what their leader and the shadow Chancellor said. They have been doing an intricate dance around the matter, so I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question: is the Labour party’s position to leave the single market, to leave the customs union and to make trade deals?
Barry Gardiner
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to read precisely what our manifesto says. We have made our position on those points extremely clear: we are leaving the European Union; that means that we want to secure the best benefits, and we will look to secure exactly what the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said he would achieve, which is the exact same benefit benefits as we currently have inside the European Union.
Barry Gardiner
The right hon. Gentleman really must allow me to respond to his first intervention before seeking to follow it up with a second. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that he does not want to listen to the answer. [Interruption.] Is he quite calm?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am sure that Mr Gardiner will take the intervention when he wants to.
Barry Gardiner
As I was saying before I was persistently—and, I must say, quite rudely—interrupted, we have set out very clearly that we will try to secure exactly the same benefits that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union claimed would be procured in the negotiations, but we are not fixated on the structures; we are fixated on the outcomes. But we will be leaving the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we are committed to honouring that manifesto commitment.
Barry Gardiner
No, the right hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
A year on, what has been achieved? It took Donald Trump’s Administration seven weeks to produce a trade policy paper. This maladministration has failed to do so in an entire year. I have now been asking the Secretary of State to produce a trade White Paper for seven months. How extraordinary it is that the Department for International Trade has existed for a year but has completely failed to set out its mission and vision in a White Paper so that British businesses can have some clarity about their future.
Nor was there any clarity in the Conservative manifesto. It was scant on detail and peppered with vague promises, such as:
“We will work to forge a new culture of exporting”
and
“We will take a more active role in supporting British consortia to win…contracts”.
Of course, we were promised a trade Bill, which has now been confirmed in the Queen’s Speech. The accompanying notes actually state that one of the main benefits of the trade Bill will be:
“To meet the manifesto commitment to ‘introduce a Trade Bill”.
Well, yes, but it is something of a tautology.
I am heartened to note that the Secretary of State clearly read our manifesto, because since the general election his Department has adopted Labour’s manifesto pledge to guarantee market access for the least developed countries to the same level they currently have with the EU. Since the general election the Government have also agreed with Labour’s manifesto pledge to address trade remedies. If only they would agree to publish a trade White Paper that integrates industrial strategy with international trade policy, that creates a network of regional trade and investment champions to promote exports, that promises full transparency and scrutiny of future trade deals, and that builds human rights and social justice as a key strand in trade policy, perhaps our encounters at the Dispatch Box would become a lot more consensual.
The challenges we face in leaving the EU are not insurmountable. Ours is a great and proud country and we are an enterprising people. Our goods and services are among the best in the world, our economy is a dynamic and attractive marketplace for investment, and we will be a thought leader in the next wave of industrial growth. However, if we are to rise to these challenges, we need more than the patriotic flag-waving we have seen from the Government Front Bench; we need clarity and careful planning, which we have not had.
We are setting out to leave our major trading partner. Where is the road map? There is no White Paper. Where is the estimate of costs? That appears to be what the Chancellor has now started demanding. Government Ministers appear incapable of presenting anything approaching a unified view on the matter. The Prime Minister repeatedly tells us that
“no deal is better than a bad deal”,
and her Chancellor says that actually
“no deal would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain”,
while her Brexit Secretary tells us that he is “pretty sure”, but “not certain” and “not 100% sure”, that there will ever be a deal.
The truth is that no deal is not a trump card to be thrown on the negotiating table in some macho gesture; it is actually the procedural outcome of article 50, because if we fail to negotiate a deal within the two-year period, we will be ejected from the single market of the European Union and put on World Trade Organisation terms. Far from being a trump card to be played, no deal is actually a cliff edge over which we would be pushed.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend quite rightly focuses on the trade deficit, which with the rest of the European Union is gigantic, but actually we have a trade surplus with the rest of the world, so the problem is essentially with our trade with the EU. Does that not put us in a very strong position to negotiate with the rest of the EU about whatever happens afterwards?
Barry Gardiner
I have absolutely said that I want us to be in a strong position in these negotiations, but what I also want is clarity from the Government about what the future will mean for our businesses.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the possibility of crashing out of Europe without a deal. If we do not achieve a deal in those negotiations, who will be responsible for not having achieved a deal?
Barry Gardiner
We must all hope that we will ensure that we get a deal, and that it will absolutely provide us with friction-free access for our goods and services.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
We talk about whether no deal is better than a bad deal, and it is a card that we can play. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that not accepting that does not mean that we will get a good deal, but if we do not accept that no deal is an option, we are guaranteed not to get an exceptional deal. For example, if he was to go and buy a car and said, “I have to buy a car today”, or if he said, “I would like to buy a car, but I don’t have to buy it today”, which would he get a better deal for? And would he like to buy a car?
Barry Gardiner
The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that the triggering of article 50 was setting precisely the timeframe in which he was to buy the car. It said that within two years either we had to negotiate a deal, or we would be trading on World Trade Organisation terms. He makes my point precisely.
Barry Gardiner
I am sorry, but I will not give way again, because I have given way many times and I am conscious that more than 20 Members wish to participate in the debate, and we have to be fair to colleagues.
My party has consistently said that economic logic should dictate the outcomes of the Brexit negotiations. Certainly we must not jeopardise a positive new trade deal for some arbitrary immigration targets set for political reasons. We need a new trade deal with the EU. It must maintain the supply chains and business relationships that link us to the EU and that are so critical for jobs and economic wellbeing.
Let us remind ourselves just what is at stake. The European Union currently accounts for 44% of our exports. The EU remains our closest trading partner, in terms of the volume of trade and geographical proximity. The top 10 Commonwealth trading partners combined account for just 8% of our exports, and the entire Commonwealth—all 52 countries—accounts for just 9%. The Secretary of State once referred to protectionism as a class A drug. If he really thinks that his current round of trade dialogues could possibly make up for the shortfall in goods exports of leaving the EU without a new free trade agreement in place, then protectionism is not the only class A drug he has been smoking.
Labour, business and the trade unions are united in prioritising the best possible access to the single market once we have left the EU. That means continued tariff-free access, no new non-tariff barriers to goods or services and, if necessary, a transitional arrangement to avoid any cliff edge.
It seems that we might lately have recruited the Chancellor to our cause. His Mansion House speech certainly seemed to have swallowed the Labour party playbook whole: fair and managed migration; a Brexit for jobs; and no deal being a very, very bad deal. Securing a trade agreement with the EU must remain the Government’s No. 1 priority. Leaving the EU without a trade agreement would be a significant failure by the Government, and the British public will remember that they were repeatedly told—we heard it repeated today—that it could not happen because the EU countries traded with us more than we did with them. Without an early and comprehensive deal with the EU, there will be substantive tariff and non-tariff measures, which will cause friction in trade between the UK and the EU, whether in customs duties, customs checks, visa processes for service providers or renewed VAT procedures.
The Government are to bring in the great repeal Bill to get rid of the European Communities Act 1972, which incorporates European legislation into domestic law and grants it supremacy over domestic law. Therefore, European legislation currently in place will be converted into ordinary repealable legislation. On the face of it, that appears to mean that the UK will be able to legislate without any regard to EU law. However, if we are to maintain a high level of access into the single market and preserve the supply chains currently in place, our exports will still have to meet European standards and requirements.
Much of the current legislation will have to remain as is. Our future legislative framework will need to be aligned to that of the EU in order to maintain the mutual recognition and equivalence necessary to trade into the European market. This is something that many British and foreign companies, including Toyota, BMW and the Confederation of British Industry, have been calling for. We will no longer have a seat around the negotiating table that decides on product and other standards, but we will be forced to accept them if we wish to continue trading into the single market. People might think that this is a rather hollow way of returning sovereignty to the UK.
In any free trade agreement that the UK negotiates after we have left the EU, we will have to make some compromises on our sovereignty. The UK will continue to be subject to some supranational court system—if not the European Court of Justice, we will be subject at least to the World Trade Organisation dispute settlement procedures. Importantly, modern free trade agreements often involve the harmonisation of national standards to match those of the partner country in order to be able to trade freely. This is not necessarily negative. International trade agreements provide an opportunity to promote higher standards across the world, rather than a race to the bottom, if they are negotiated correctly.
There is no dichotomy between trade with the EU and trade with the rest of the world—that is simply absurd—but our global trade opportunities will be shaped by our future relationship with the EU, whatever that is. Prospective trade agreement partners will want to know what trading bilaterally with the UK will mean for access onwards into the EU.
Kelvin Hopkins
I want to be helpful to my hon. Friend. There is a constant emphasis on access to EU markets, when they have a gigantic surplus in our markets. At Bretton Woods, John Maynard Keynes was concerned about gross trade imbalances between nations, and the conference tried to sort out a system that would avoid that in future. We have a gigantic trade distortion with the rest of the EU, which has to be sorted out one way or another. Does my hon. Friend accept that?
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend does not want to see a decline in jobs in any sector of this country. It is really not right simply to dismiss the fact that, if we do not secure friction-free, tariff-free arrangements with the European market, those jobs could be prejudiced in this country. I am sure that he would want to take cognisance of that.
Cross-border data flows are a key cornerstone of the digital economy. They help to drive UK innovation, economic growth and business efficiency through facilitating data transfers between organisations located in different countries. To help our economy grow and create jobs in the UK, we need to create a trade environment that drives innovation and positions the UK as a leader in the digital economy. techUK speaks for business when it says that the Government need to facilitate access to both the European market and the rest of the world, but this requires appropriate cross-border data flow arrangements with our different trading partners. It sounds simple. It is not.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations on the EU’s privacy shield framework to replace the safe harbour privacy principles demonstrated that facilitating cross-border data flows between the European system and the American system is a genuine challenge that will not be addressed overnight in future free trade agreements. We cannot simply create a separate trade policy on this issue for the EU and a different one for non-EU countries. The direction we take on one influences our options on the other. Will the Minister set out what discussions he has had with industry on this and what decision, if any, he has taken about the appropriate way to go forward? He will appreciate that the issue of cross-border data flows is not just about facilitating market access. It is also about the regulatory framework to provide data protection for privacy and human rights.
The second example of the inseparability of EU trade and our policy for trade with the rest of the world relates to the future support that we provide our agricultural industry. The UK’s food and farming industry is not only important to our national identity; agriculture also contributed £9.7 billion to the UK economy in 2016. Our food and farming industry is the product of decades of shaping by the European single market and the £3 billion-plus of support from the common agricultural policy.
The EU’s combined rights and shared obligations under the WTO include a specified limit on the amount of agricultural subsidies that the EU may utilise. The UK is entitled to a share of these as part of the Brexit divorce and could, in theory, continue with a modified version of the CAP. But the Secretary of State will know that there are rumours that his Government are considering a deal whereby the UK would give up a share of its agricultural subsidies to the EU in order to secure a more favourable deal for other sectors of our economy. Will he guarantee today that our future trading relationships will not be based upon the sacrificing of British farmers and their livelihoods?
It is not just the EU that will be pressurising the UK to drop its share of agricultural subsidies. A number of countries have already expressed interest in free trade agreements with the UK on the basis of liberalising our agricultural market. Countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa are active members of the Cairns Group, which is a WTO negotiating group precisely for agricultural trade liberalisation and the reduction of subsidies. Does the Secretary of State regard this liberalisation as positive for our farmers?
Helen Goodman
I am extremely concerned to hear what my hon. Friend is saying given that there are 400 sheep farmers in my constituency, who would be very badly affected were we to have a flood of cheap lamb imports from Australia and New Zealand. Does he agree that there can be no virtue in our destroying the hill farmers in our country to benefit the sheep farmers in wealthy countries such as Australia and New Zealand?
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that, were we to go on to WTO terms—from memory, the tariff rate for sheepmeat is about 44%—we would absolutely destroy the capacity of our hill farmers in particular to compete with foreign imports.
The Government need to come clean and give clarity to the British food and farming industry on our future trade policy options and what that means for the industry. It is not good enough to tell farmers that the status quo will be maintained until 2020 and then leave an abyss as to what options are available for their future. These people need a comprehensive international trade policy, and they need to know what it is.
Beyond Brexit, as the United Kingdom once again assumes competence for its own independent trade agreements, the Secretary of State must set out how he is pursuing agreements that share the benefits of globalisation more equitably. One can only wonder that this Government thought it sensible to embark upon a new industrial strategy without first publishing a White Paper on trade, so will he publish a trade White Paper? He has introduced a trade Bill in the Queen’s Speech but, as of this moment, he has not set out to Parliament or to business any policy on which to base it.
The Secretary of State has been travelling around the world holding preliminary talks with his counterparts. In fact, he has recently returned from a visit to the USA. When the Prime Minister first announced the start of preliminary talks with the USA, the American Farm Bureau Federation wasted no time in confirming that it would seek food hygiene changes in any UK-US deal, namely to end restrictions on US exports of chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-grown beef. Will the Secretary of State confirm to us that, in any talks about future trade deals, the sovereignty of our food safety and environmental protection standards will be not be sacrificed in the name of regulatory harmonisation?
An industrial strategy and international trade White Paper should have come together precisely because of the interdependence of trade, job creation, and economic growth. That makes Labour Members fearful that the Government have not done the proper assessment of the danger that future trade arrangements could pose for job losses and wage depression. The Government have put the cart before the horse. A trade White Paper should set out what the UK’s future policy on trade defence instruments will be. The EU currently has in place a series of trade defence measures, such as anti-dumping measures against China—and, to a lesser degree, India and Malaysia—on steel, other metals, and solar panels. The UK has famously opposed such measures at the EU. Now that we will be able to set our own trade policy, the Government must tell us whether they will stick to that line. If they do not plan to introduce trade defence measures, they need to set out whether and how they will protect and support sensitive sectors such as the steel industry and the solar panel industry from cheap imports.
The Government must also weigh whether they can afford to take a tough stance with countries like China and India with which they will be looking to conclude trade deals—or will they sell out our steel sector and others? The UK steel sector is in an existential crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who chaired the all-party parliamentary group on steel, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who launched the “Steel 2020” report earlier this year alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), expressed outrage at the Government’s leaked memo that suggested steel would not be a priority industry post Brexit, threatening to destroy the very livelihoods of communities across England and south Wales. Similar concerns were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, as the ceramics industry in the Potteries faces increasing competition from Chinese dumping on world markets. The British Government have for the past number of years been blocking efforts by the EU to introduce the sort of anti-dumping measures employed by the US by repeatedly exercising a veto and actively encouraging a blocking group of other nations. One official in Brussels is reported as saying:
“The British are sacrificing an entire European industry to say thank you to China for signing up to the nuclear power project at Hinkley Point, and pretending it is about free trade.”
It is right that we reach out to our international counterparts, but travelling around the world to hold “pre-negotiations” is no substitute for clear policy that sets out what our negotiating armoury is. An international trade White Paper should set out the Government’s principles—a clear plan of what the UK intends to achieve through future trade negotiations.
Barry Gardiner
No, I am about to conclude.
To that end, I ask the Minister to respond to the following questions about the Government’s international trade policy. What are their principal trade policy objectives? What will be their guiding principles for our future negotiations? How will they seek further liberalisation from our current tariff levels, and in which sectors? What transparency and parliamentary scrutiny will be given over our future trade negotiations? Will they commit to disclosing whether any obligations in trade agreements, both those in negotiation and finalised, are the motivation for legislative amendments before the House or regulatory changes by the Government? How will they ensure that our future trade agreements benefit British small and medium-sized enterprises as well as big business? How do they propose to protect and enhance workers’ rights? How will they address human rights within the context of new trade agreements? How will sustainable development be a guiding principle for our trade policy? How will they ensure that current environmental protections are maintained and enhanced in future trade agreements? What investment dispute resolution model, or models, are the Government willing to adopt?
The Department’s recruitment advertisements suggest that the priority trade sectors are healthcare, financial services, and education; clearly, food and farming do not feature among its priorities. How will trade policy address the sectors that do not appear to have been identified as a priority? Will the Government be excluding devolved Administrations and local government agencies from trade agreement commitments on Government procurement? How will they ensure that British businesses maintain access both to European markets and the markets of other trading partners, especially where there is considerable regulatory divergence between these markets? Will the UK be adopting any non-conforming measures for investment and service commitments in its future trade agreements?
By providing comprehensive answers to all these questions and publishing an international trade White Paper, the Government may be able to restore business confidence in the fact that they are holding current trade dialogues and working groups that are backed by a clear and strategic plan. If not, it will reinforce the sense that the Government are blundering into this process without a clear endgame and lacking a strategic understanding of the issues at stake for the UK economy and for jobs in this country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and welcome him back to his place; I have fond memories of working closely with him in previous Departments on trade and other issues.
There are two things to say in response to the hon. Gentleman’s question. He is right that the removal of non-tariff barriers—the grit in the system—is a key aspect of our Department’s work, and he is right to emphasise that this is about not just free trade agreements in the future, but also removing those practical barriers, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had those talks back in December. In terms of supporting SMEs, the GREAT.gov.uk portal is very good; there is good access to Brazilian deals that are coming up, and I urge all SMEs to go to that portal, in order to access that.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Of course, the Minister could have pointed out that a trade agreement can only take place with Mercosur, because Brazil is part of that bloc, and should an EU trade agreement be put in place with Mercosur prior to our leaving the EU, it would become one of the agreements the EU currently has with some 50 countries. How does the Secretary of State propose to carry out his manifesto commitment to replicate all of those existing agreements after Brexit, and specifically, what legislative instruments does he propose to introduce to that end in the trade Bill?
Greg Hands
A lot of these matters will form part of the trade Bill which will be introduced in this Session. What is most important is that, as we seek a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union, we seek to replicate all of those existing EU free trade agreements, to provide certainty and stability for our businesses as we go forward to enable them to access both existing and future markets.
Dr Fox
We have made it clear that, post Brexit, we will continue with duty-free access for the least-developed countries, but we need to see whether we can go further and reduce some of the burdens, particularly as we leave the customs union and are outside the common external tariff, by stopping the distortions on value added, which diminish the chance of investment in some of those developing countries.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
In his recent talks in the United States, did the Secretary of State discuss President Trump’s initiation of a section 232 investigation into the effect of steel imports on US national security? What concerns does the Secretary of State have about the impact such a protectionist ruling might have on the UK’s steel sector and on jobs in our steel industry due to lost exports and trade deflection of dumped goods on our market?
Dr Fox
We are all concerned about the overproduction of steel, largely coming from China, and what we have seen as possibly unacceptable subsidies into that sector, but it needs to be addressed in a way that is compliant with the WTO rules-based system. I raised with Secretary Ross and the trade representative, Mr Lighthizer, the impact that could have on the United Kingdom, and it is fair to say that our views landed. We now await the publication of the report, on which the President has up to 90 days to act.
Oral Answers to Questions
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Garnier
The Department for International Trade is carrying out an analysis of how WTO rules will affect every sector of our economy. This is an ongoing process, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the technology sector as one in which this country is leading, and that is a fantastic opportunity.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, you and I have been in this House for 20 years, and after yesterday’s attack, I have never felt more proud or more grateful to be speaking in this Chamber.
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the need to deploy WTO trade remedies? We know that the Government opposed anti-dumping measures in Europe that would have protected British industries. Earlier, he spoke of a balance of interests between UK producers and UK consumers. If there is to be a balance, how many specialist staff has he recruited to deploy successful anti-dumping measures and protect vital UK jobs in the steel and ceramics industries from dumping by China?
Mark Garnier
We will bring forward our proposals on this to the House in due course, but at the moment we are looking to adopt a rules-based process to deal with it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mark Garnier)
The Department for International Trade works with, and will continue to work with, key UK suppliers, potential and existing inward investors, foreign Governments and offshore wind developers. The UK is building a competitive and innovative supply chain that creates and sustains jobs, exports and economic benefits for the UK as we leave the European Union.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Now that the Secretary of State has revealed to The Sun his plans for a trade Bill in the Queen’s Speech, will he do Parliament the courtesy of publishing a trade White Paper that sets out clearly what markets he wishes to liberalise and what measures he will take in future trade agreements to protect and enhance International Labour Organisation principles, sustainable development, human rights, environmental protection, intellectual property rights, food standards, future options on state-owned enterprises and the ability to nationalise particular sectors? If he develops an informed, consultative international trade policy, the Government may be able to restore confidence that they are holding trade dialogues that are backed by a clear and strategic plan.
Dr Fox
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Should the Government intend to introduce legislation on this issue in the Queen’s Speech, we would want a consultative process so that stakeholders could make their views known. It is important that we do that in a very collegiate way, because that is, as he said, the way to maintain and maximise confidence.
Commonwealth: Trade
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Your firm guidance and chairmanship, Mr Davies, are always much appreciated by Members.
This has been an excellent debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and to the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), both of whom spoke very powerfully about the importance of education and visas connected with education. I especially want to draw out the remarks of the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who spoke with great knowledge and understanding of the dangers that exist for our farmers.
I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) for initiating the debate. I thought it could have been subtitled “The importance of old friends”, because long before the Common Market became a twinkle in Edward Heath’s eye we had the Commonwealth. At a time when we are loosening the bonds with our nearest friends after a 40-year partnership in the EU, we have come to realise the value of those old friends. We seek to strengthen our ties with India, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Australia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria and all 52 Commonwealth members.
Trade is one of the most effective means of creating shared prosperity and decent jobs. Opposition Members understand the power of fair and open trade. We share the dream of the vast majority of people around the world who want to see closer ties between countries. We want to build trade links, not protectionist walls. We are therefore emphatic in our support for promoting trade with the Commonwealth and in welcoming the Commonwealth Trade Ministers conference to London next month. In that regard, I pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire).
[Albert Owen in the Chair]
It would be foolish, however, to think that we in the UK may simply pick up where we left off before we joined the EU. The world has changed, the power balance has changed and the nature of global trade has been transformed beyond recognition. Yesterday, His Excellency Y. K. Sinha, the new high commissioner for India in London, made that absolutely clear at a conference in East Anglia. He said that the key to a post-Brexit free trade agreement would be to resolve the issue of workers’ mobility—how familiar does that sound from our Brexit debate? He made it clear that, for India, it is essential to ensure that its financial services and IT professionals could come to and go from the UK freely. He said:
“For India mobility is key”
and went on to point out that a recent study suggested that a free trade agreement could increase UK-India trade by 25%—I use that figure, but the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen said 26%. That would boost UK exports by only 0.4% of total exports. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the “huge prize” that that would be, but let us be clear and do the maths: none of the UK’s top 10 export partners is a Commonwealth country. Indeed, in respect of those Commonwealth countries for which the Government have announced trade working groups and dialogues, the volume of exports from the UK is extremely low. India accounts for 1.7% of our exports, Australia 1.7%, Canada 1.2% and New Zealand approximately 0.2%. Let us add Singapore, given the Secretary of State’s recent visit—that accounts for an additional 1.2%.
Barry Gardiner
Because of the time, I will not.
The Conservative Free Enterprise Group think-tank identified those countries as the priority target for trade agreements. It also recognised that the 10 largest Commonwealth export markets for the UK account for no more than 8% of our total exports but almost three quarters of our exports to the Commonwealth. Clearly, any shift away from the EU would require a substantial uplift in our export growth to make up for the potential loss from the European Union.
It has properly been said that trade between Commonwealth countries is enhanced and facilitated by the context of shared languages, cultural familiarity and particularly common legal and regulatory frameworks. The various communities in the UK from Commonwealth countries, including those in my borough, Brent, are our very best trade advantage. It is estimated that the so-called Commonwealth effect reduces overhead costs for businesses trading between markets by up to 15%.
However, there has been a move to greater regional co-operation through formalised partnerships and institutions very like the European Union, and the increased regulatory harmonisation that goes with that, which has unlocked similar benefits for those Commonwealth countries. It can be no coincidence that the countries mentioned by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen are all members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. That drive to regional partnerships is significant. We must consider that, although the United Kingdom has determined that it will withdraw from the EU, many Commonwealth countries seek precisely to strengthen their own participation in such regional agreements, and not to recreate the Commonwealth’s old links with the UK. Two Commonwealth countries—Malta and Cyprus—remain members of the EU and will find themselves similarly restricted from pursuing the trade agreements that the UK now seeks.
I will try to move to a close in the next couple of minutes, Mr Owen, as I was asked to. That means leaving out a great deal, but let me pick up one essential thing. By withdrawing from the European Union, we will leave the EU’s generalised system of preferences, which allows developing countries favourable market access through generous tariff reductions, which essentially remove tariffs on approximately two thirds of imports from those countries.
I want to ask the Minister about the GSP-plus enhanced preference scheme for countries that have ratified and implemented core international conventions relating to human and labour rights, the environment and good governance, and the “Everything but Arms” arrangement for least developed countries, which grants duty-free and quota-free access to all products from those countries except arms and ammunition. Will he give us a strong reassurance that, when the UK leaves the EU, those very poorest countries, many of which are Commonwealth countries, will not see their exports to the UK effectively fall off a cliff edge? Will he assure us that the Government will continue the generalised system of preferences arrangements after the UK leaves the EU?
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
I call the Minister to respond to the debate and perhaps allow Mr Berry a minute at the end to wind up.
Oral Answers to Questions
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Fox
I certainly hope that will be possible, given the freedom that we will have outside the European Union to negotiate such a free trade agreement. It is not just our two countries that will benefit; all countries around the globe will benefit from the new global Britain and our attitude towards global free trade, with all the benefits it brings, especially to the world’s poor.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that New Zealand is a land of 30 million sheep—there are six or seven sheep for every person—so has he discussed the impact of a trade deal with the leader of the National Farmers Union? It regards the combination of a 43% World Trade Organisation tariff on sheepmeat and increased market access for New Zealand as potentially fatal to our sheep farmers. How will he protect them?
Dr Fox
As I said in answer to an earlier question, that will be an important part of our discussions. We will want to discuss how we do that with the NFU and others, but we also need to take something into account that does not seem to be mentioned very often, which is the interests of UK consumers in any trade deal that we come to.
Mark Garnier
It is good to see the far west of this country being so well represented today, on a one-line Whip just ahead of the recess. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are fantastic products coming from her constituency, including award-winning brands such as Cornish Orchards cider, Cornish Blue and Cornish Gouda. It is absolutely the job of the Department to go out to the rest of the world and, as I said before, to push Cornish exports far beyond the Tamar to the four corners of the globe.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
When I wrote to the Secretary of State in November to ask for an investigation into his Department’s support for any British businesses engaged in corrupt practices, he replied that his Department had no power to conduct such an investigation. Last week, after the publicity surrounding Roll-Royce’s deferred prosecution, he announced precisely such an investigation. When did the powers of his Department change, when will the inquiry report back, and will he explain why he has refused to comply with the open government principles of the OECD anti-bribery convention?
Greg Hands
Rolls-Royce has made it clear that it will not tolerate improper business conduct of any sort. It continues to co-operate fully with the Serious Fraud Office, and we await the final outcome, on which it would not be proper to comment beforehand. UK Export Finance notes, and is reviewing, the statement of facts released as part of the deferred prosecution agreement with regards to Rolls-Royce, but the details of the statement are a matter for the SFO and it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.
EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I will now take questions to the Minister, which will be brief because there will be an opportunity for debate later. I am happy to take supplementary questions.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
First, I would like the Minister to clarify a point. He said that nothing stops us protecting the NHS. Of course, he will be aware that, uniquely, CETA adopts a negative list approach. The German Government have incorporated their health service in that negative list to protect it, but the UK Government did not see fit to do the same. They reserved that for private ambulance services, but not for the NHS. Will the Minister explain why that was the case?
Greg Hands
The Government have always been clear that protecting our NHS is of the utmost importance. It is important to understand that nothing in CETA prevents the UK, or other member states, including Germany, from regulating in pursuit of legitimate public policy objectives such as those relating to the NHS. CETA will not force or incite Governments to privatise or deregulate public services, and nothing in CETA will prevent any Government from reversing any decision to privatise in those sectors. Moreover, the joint interpretative instrument that was agreed by the European Union—by the Commission—and Canada in October affirms
“the right of governments, at all levels, to provide and support the provision of services that they consider public services including in areas such as public health and education, social services and housing and the collection, purification and distribution of water.”
Barry Gardiner
The Minister will know that although the joint interpretative instrument has legal force, it does not supersede the agreement. He talked about taking back into public ownership any aspect that had been privatised; will he explain further how the ratchet mechanism works? That seems to be in place precisely to stop any country doing exactly what he has just said.
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the follow-up question, but he has no need for concern in this space. The October joint interpretative instrument is a clarification of what was already in the agreement, which is clear: the NHS will be protected by our right to regulate. Other member states have those same rights.
Barry Gardiner
Many, Sir Edward. Further to my question on the NHS, will the Minister explain why the German Government and other Governments saw fit to protect their health services in their entirety, while the British Government felt the need to protect private ambulance services by listing them in the annexe, but not the health service as a whole? That is the key question. What was the rationale for that? If he believes that health services are protected under the generality of the agreement, why did he bother specifying private ambulance services?
Greg Hands
The simple answer is that it was not necessary to put that in the JII. For the benefit of the Opposition—I know there is a lot of public interest in this—I will repeat the six points to make about protections taken with regard to the NHS in CETA. First, as I have said, simply nothing in CETA would require the UK to privatise public services. Secondly, CETA contains a reservation allowing EU member states to impose a public monopoly on services considered, at national or local level, to be public utilities, including in the health sector, so even if public services are contracted out or privatised, the Government would remain able to impose a public monopoly.
Thirdly, Government procurement decisions relating to sensitive public services such as the health service are excluded from the scope of CETA. Fourthly, CETA contains EU-wide reservations specifically designed to protect particularly sensitive public services, such as health and education, ensuring that the Government may act as they consider appropriate in relation to such services when they receive public funding. Fifthly, in particular areas, the UK has taken a number of UK-specific reservations that go beyond those applying to other member states. For example, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the UK retains the right to take any measures that it sees fit concerning privately funded ambulances, because that right is not explicitly stated in the rest of the agreement—they are not a public utility.
Sixthly, CETA contains general exceptions that allow parties to take measures necessary to protect certain key public interests, including public health. Those are the six key protections. There is a specific reservation for services considered as public utilities that overrides the ratchet mechanism. Other reservations are also relevant in this space.
Barry Gardiner
I have to say that I am not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation, and nor indeed with what he said about the ratchet mechanism. I trust that we will have a chance to debate those issues. Will he provide more information on how the Government intend to transition CETA to apply to the UK once we have left the EU? He was right that the mixed investment part of the agreement would not apply in the provisional application, but he did not explain what transitional arrangements he is looking at to apply the agreement in the UK after we have left the EU.
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which allows us the opportunity to explore the matter. However, we do have to bear in mind that, with regard to what transitioning might be done, that is looking fairly far into the future. We are looking to maintain existing commitments, which I think would necessarily be less complex than starting from scratch, in places where such commitments are appropriate. We will seek to achieve continuity in our trade and investment relationships with third countries, including those covered by EU free trade agreements and other preferential arrangements.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that because CETA was negotiated as an EU-Canada agreement, there will be areas in which what would be most beneficial to the UK has been sacrificed for the benefit of the rest of the EU, because that was the basis of the negotiation? Therefore, given that we will shortly be coming out of the EU, would it not actually be better for us to have a separate bilateral treaty? No doubt CETA could provide the basis of much of what would be contained in that. To sign ourselves up now to elements negotiated to our detriment and for the betterment of other countries in Europe would seem rather comical.
Greg Hands
Inevitably, a future UK-Canada free trade agreement or similar things would balance taking what is already there or agreed between Canada and the European Union and seeking to do something specific to the UK. Clearly at some point in the future there will be a balance to strike between continuity and seeking advantages for the UK compared to the previous agreement. However, that is a discussion for the future. The Government are strongly supportive of CETA, and at the moment we are looking to get it through the European Parliament for it to have its provisional application. The UK remains strongly supportive of CETA going through, as part of our message overall that the UK is a strong supporter of global free trade. The Prime Minister herself has said that the UK will be the most passionate, compelling and convincing advocate of global free trade, and we see CETA as part of that key agenda.
The Chair
Mr Gardiner, would you mind if I make this the last question from you, because others want to come in? You can always come in later.
Barry Gardiner
Of course, Sir Edward. To pick up on what the Minister has said, I think he accepts the basic premise that CETA was an EU-negotiated treaty and therefore some aspects of it will have been negotiated for other countries’ benefit and to our detriment. He then said that we are firm supporters of free trade—I totally agree with him that we want fair and open trade, because that is to all our benefit—but he has failed to articulate how we will be in a position to renegotiate the basis of the agreement we will have entered into under the European Union. The ratchet mechanism will still apply. He seems to think that once we have left the European Union we will be able simply to renegotiate the treaties we had, but that would be to an investor’s detriment; it would be to the detriment of Canada, which had already negotiated a better deal with us when we were part of the EU. It is very unlikely that it would concede to that. Indeed, the ratchet mechanism is there precisely to stop that.
Greg Hands
I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise that the UK sacrificed some key interests on the altar of getting an EU-wide common position before going into these complex and intricate negotiations. The important thing is that CETA would no longer apply after we leave. Having negotiated at an EU level can form a basis but there is nothing to stop us negotiating our own deal thereafter.
The Chair
I will let Mr Gardiner in, and if there is time, Mr Grant can always ask another question.
Barry Gardiner
I want to pick up on the idea that the Secretary of State has done everything that could be reasonably required of him. He appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee on 26 October, which was after he had given the commitments on 7 September. He stated that he was “very happy” to have the debate on the Floor of the House. He claimed that the failure to set a date for the debate had been owing to a scheduling problem in the parliamentary calendar. In reality, as a freedom of information request submitted by my office revealed, the Government had not been delayed by a scheduling problem in the parliamentary calendar; in fact, the first time that the Department for International Trade had even approached the business managers to discuss a potential debate on CETA was on 25 October, precisely one day before the Secretary of State was due to appear before the Committee and account for his failure to schedule that debate.
Worse still, the email trail shows departmental officials asking whether they actually needed to set a date for a CETA debate at all, or whether it might be enough just to tell the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee that
“they were in the process of scheduling a debate”.
The email actually reads:
“What advice would you give would it be better to have an actual date or do you think we can just tell the chair we are in the process of scheduling a debate.”
The Chair
That is quite a long question. Shall we stop it there and let the Minister reply?
Greg Hands
I really do feel that I have already answered these questions. The hon. Member for Glenrothes, or perhaps the hon. Member for Swansea West, said that the Secretary of State was dragged before the European Scrutiny Committee. May I say that my right hon. Friend appeared just six days after the signing of the agreement, and could hardly have been quicker? That happened very quickly after scrutiny had to be overridden for the reasons that I explained: at the European Council, it would have been damaging for the UK to have appeared to obstruct CETA. That would have damaged our relations with the Commission and the EU member states, and greatly damaged our relations with Canada, one of our most important partners in the world, not just for trade but on security and other matters.
My right hon. Friend spoke to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee on a number of occasions at that time, to explain what he was doing. He made a considerable effort to make sure that the Committee was brought into that decision process. We have today’s debate, and it might be time now, Sir Edward, to move to consider the substance of the debate, rather than these process arguments. After all, we are having the debate in advance of the European Parliament debate on 15 February.
The Chair
Time is running out, and we have dealt with the issue in quite a lot of detail. I think we should think about moving on to the substance, Mr. Gardiner.
The Chair
It is entirely up to you, but you have not got very long left. There is quite a lot of substance to debate, but you can take up the time exactly as you want.
Barry Gardiner
I do want to address all the issues of substance. The joint interpretive instrument was prayed in aid by the Minister but, of course, that says that the right to regulate applies only to procurement conditions that do not represent unnecessary barriers to trade.
Does the Minister consider that that is a proper restriction of the right to regulate, given that the trade dispute panels, as he well knows, have interpreted that word “necessity”—the necessity test—very narrowly in the past? Therefore, to pray it in aid as showing there will be no restriction is fine-tuning the interpretation in a way that experience would belie.
Greg Hands
I repeat that the JII is there to help as an addition to the agreement. It is agreed as an extra rider, as it were, to that agreement. The agreement itself provides for the right to regulate for parties and national Governments, including for the environment, public health, public ownership and all those other important issues. I think that, in his fears about the JII, the hon. Gentleman is chasing after something that does not exist.
Greg Hands
I have already talked about some of the concerns that the UK has had over some time in relation to the ICS. For example, some things still need clarification, such as how the arbiters are chosen, the cost of the ICS, the appointments and all of those kinds of things. Those will be matters for the future for the ICS. I repeat that the ICS is not a part of what is being provisionally applied; that is, what is in front of us today.
Barry Gardiner
Would the ICS not operate with general exceptions, rather than with country-specific reservation?
Greg Hands
Can I answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific point on the ICS in a moment?
Greg Hands
That is a fair point, Sir Edward. Let me instead ask members of the Committee to consider what the situation would have been on 18 October had it been not the Walloons who said no to the provisional agreement, but the UK. Bear in mind that the Government’s position is that we want this country to be at the global forefront of promoting free trade. Had it been the UK, which had been party to the negotiations for many years, that said no on 18 October—no to Canada, no to the Commission, no to Cecilia Malmström—it would have been catastrophic for our international relations and our trading relations. The Government’s position was and remains that this is a good agreement. Even though we are leaving the European Union, I cannot stress enough how important it is for us that CETA is passed and comes into effect.
I happened to note that earlier in the week the Opposition tabled a different amendment, one that was opposed to CETA—the actual content of CETA—rather than the procedural aspects and the lack of time, which the amendment before us today deals with. I ask all members of the Committee to consider whether we are believers in global free trade and want to have a good free trade agreement with Canada. I strongly believe it is in our country’s interests to do so, and I have yet to hear that from the official Opposition.
Barry Gardiner
Clarification that the Minister has heard that from the official Opposition today, because I stated it in the very first question I asked.
Greg Hands
I am not sure that I fully followed that, but on why the UK overrode scrutiny at the European Council on 18 October, the Secretary of State wrote to the Committee to outline what he intended to do, given the fact that the three motions were to be taken as a package. He then appeared before the Select Committee as soon as possible—really as soon as possible—after that European Council, in this case on 26 October. The European Council that took place on 18 October ultimately led to the signing on 20 October. You will recall, Sir Edward, the delay caused by the Walloons seeking further clarification.
As for the provisions of the 1998 resolution, it is not entirely clear to me whether that refers to the House as whole or to the European Scrutiny Committee, which acts on behalf of the House in these matters. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman setting out some clarification. I was not a Member of the House in 1998, but I am happy to write to him to outline the impact of that measure on our interactions since it was passed.
The Chair
We are running out of time, but I could extend the time and cut into the debate on the motion. Would you like to ask one more little question, Mr Gardiner, and then we can perhaps finish this part of the sitting on time and go into the debate?
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, Sir Edward. Perhaps the Minister could provide information on whether any comparison has been made between the risk from the investor-state dispute mechanism under our pre-existing bilateral investment treaties and the risk from the ICS established under CETA? Of course, 98.5% of our bilateral investment treaties in force are with non-OECD countries, and 61.45% of those treaties are so old that they predate the World Trade Organisation. There needs to have been an impact assessment of the risk from the ICS. Can the Minister assure us that that has been done? Which criteria were used in assessing the risks from the ICS? How did they compare with the risks under pre-existing bilateral treaties?
Geraint Davies
Thank you, Sir Edward.
The view of the European Scrutiny Committee is that in the light of the unfortunate lack of scrutiny, all members of the Committee should find it in their heart and mind to add the words in the amendment to the motion so that we can all come together and agree it. The Government might say, “Sorry, we don’t want more scrutiny; we want to take control, but we want to take it in the corner without other people having any involvement”, but I am afraid that I will certainly not vote for a motion that does not require extra scrutiny, given that the Secretary of State has given a solemn undertaking to provide it.
I will give some of the reasons for further scrutiny given the concerns about CETA, particularly when the ICS is introduced to it. The key debate in Europe has been about why we need the ICS, and the answer that has been given is that it is to protect investors. However, we must ask how investors are protected at the moment. Are they adequately protected? The answer is that they are. In Europe they are protected by county courts, national courts and national law, European law and the European Court of Human Rights. In Canada there are provincial courts, appeal courts and the Supreme Court. The United States has a similar legal system. It is not surprising that our long-established systems of public law, contract law and commercial law balance the interests of the investor against the wider public interest.
That is particularly important in examples such as the balance of investor and environmental interest in fracking. Or perhaps an investor such as a fizzy drinks manufacturer might come along and the Government might say, as the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) did, “Actually, we’re about bit worried about diabetes and obesity; 45% of sugar consumption by teenagers is from fizzy drinks, so we’ll put a tax on them.” If that went to court, the court could say, “We’ve got to balance the public interest with investor interest”. However, an arbitration court is all about the interest of the investor and whether a particular law has had an impact on the future profitability of a legitimate investor. In the narrow case in Mexico that I mentioned, of course the court, using that narrow definition of investor interest, ruled that the tax had reduced the investor’s sales and profitability, and the public had to pay the price. That is outrageous, and we should not just nod that sort of thing through.
We have systems of law that protect both the investors and the public. The precursor to the ICS—the so-called investor-state dispute settlement—was introduced in 1957 in an agreement between Germany and Pakistan, because the Germans thought that there was some risk to their investment. I do not have anything against arbitration courts per se if they are about, for instance, European countries investing in high-risk countries with undeveloped judiciaries and unstable political environments. That means that investors can take necessary risk and the arbitration court can take a view on unreasonable sequestration.
That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about mature economies, judiciaries and democracies that already trade enormous amounts of goods and services. The great advantage of CETA is that it will pave the way for the regulation and harmonisation of standards—there are concerns about standards, incidentally, but I will come to that in a moment. The opportunity is something like 0.5% of GDP, so it is not overwhelming. Most of the problems are about tariffs, but the big problem has been about the ICS. I know that the Minister says we have set that to one side, but it will be a problem downstream. Issues such as this are fundamental to democracy, the rule of law and human rights, so we will need a proper debate. If the ICS comes in downstream and intimidates Governments into not introducing laws to protect their citizens, it will be a major problem for democracy itself. That is why there has been such a big debate among the 47 countries of the Council of Europe, above and beyond the European Union.
Barry Gardiner
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s points and I agree with a great deal of what he says. Does he consider that there is an irony in the fact that we are leaving the European Union in order to come out from supranational institutions that can override national Parliaments and courts, yet at the very same moment we appear to be signing up to an agreement that will give us a supranational court that sits over us?
Geraint Davies
More than an irony—a tragedy. The view of some, apparently, is that we should move out of the orbit of the European Court of Human Rights, which supports the fundamental values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and into the orbit of arbitration courts whose basic remit relates to the interests of the investor, as opposed to the wider interests of the environment. If the Minister has looked at the detail of the chapters of CETA, he will have observed that the investor chapter is armed with arbitration courts that trump national and international law, but that there are no such teeth in the environment chapter, for instance. There is no enforceability of the Paris agreement that we have all signed up to in order to save the planet. Nor, for that matter, is there any enforceability of labour rights.
We need a debate, because ICS is down the road—I accept that it has not yet come in and we can do the other bits first, but there is a concern that that is an unnecessary and dangerous prospect. I do not want to run through hundreds of cases, but there was a famous case in which Obama said to TransCanada, “We don’t want this sand oil pipeline coming in from Canada to the US, because it is a breach of the Paris agreement.” As I understand it, the case has now been dropped because Donald Trump has taken over the presidency, but TransCanada was going to sue the US for $15 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North mentioned ratcheting and reassurances about health services; there was a case in which Slovakia attempted to renationalise part of its health service and was penalised in court with fines. Hon. Members may remember that at the last election the Labour party stood up and said that it wanted to freeze energy prices; one may or may not like that idea, but Argentina was sued for $1 billion under ISDS by energy companies from America and Europe for doing exactly that. Philip Morris, famously, has been pursuing a case against Australia and Uruguay to stop plain tobacco packaging, which was introduced to reduce deaths from cancer.
The problem with these courts is that they are secret, they have a narrow remit, they are run by commercial lawyers, they are inconsistent in outcomes and they do not normally have appeals. Under the new ICS they will have appeals, but they will not adopt the doctrine of precedent, so one court’s verdict may not inform the next court. The Council of Europe, which I mentioned earlier, has therefore said, “Hold on—we are very concerned about the investment court system, but if and when it does come in, it should be subject, as a minimum, to a number of constraints. In accordance with the European Court of Human Rights, there should be one-year opt-outs with six-year investor protection, and there should be actual damages rather than the fantasy projections of profit that have been sued for.”
I have already mentioned the problems with secrecy and lack of accountability. The Secretary of State seemed to think that it was marvellous that we should be able to go into a library on our own and have a look at the CETA documents, without taking photocopies. Obviously, no one can really understand what they are looking at and gain a meaningful view in the amount of time they are given. It seems to have been a bit of a joke, to put it mildly.
There are other issues that the Minister may want to respond to. There is widespread concern about European standards, for example, in relation to genetically modified food and other food standards, so can he give us any assurances that we will not be slipping to the lowest common denominator in health and equality standards? There are concerns that the precautionary principle, which has been a principle of EU law, has not in fact been instilled into CETA.
People are also concerned that there is a move away from openness in clinical trials. As Members may be aware, the clinical trials directive requires pharmaceutical companies to go public with the outcomes of their clinical trials. As I understand it, CETA will give private companies the right to withhold the outcomes of clinical trials. For example, if a company such as the one that manufactured thalidomide found that half the trials for a certain drug were negative and half were positive, it could publish only the half that were positive. What does the Minister have to say about that? What about the issues relating to trade secrets in CETA? He may think that these are minor points, but I want some reassurance.
I am trying to make the case that, given that there are so many issues, we need a proper debate. Parliamentarians are concerned. When we look at VW fixing emissions, for example, we see that there are new opportunities in CETA for trade secrets. If an employee blows the whistle because they discover that their company is harming public health, for example with diesel emissions, or a drug that harms babies—whatever it is—they can be punished by the company. These are issues of concern that require clarity and debate.
There are concerns about labour rights and whether there will be an assurance that International Labour Organisation conventions will be fulfilled. There are concerns about level playing fields and whether procurement will be equal and apposite. There are concerns about winners and losers, which the European Scrutiny Committee has also debated. We are told that there will be an overall GDP gain of something like 0.5%, but which sectors will win and which will lose? Will small companies lose out? The Prime Minister has already said that she will back certain winners, so perhaps motor manufacturers will get a good deal, but there is some fear that Welsh lamb producers could face a 40% tariff after Brexit. We also have the concern, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, about geographical indicators. Welsh lamb was not a geographical indicator originally, so in theory someone could sell in Britain lamb that had been produced in Canada and call it Welsh lamb. That is a real problem.
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, Sir Edward. I welcome the opportunity, under your chairmanship, to address the Committee in this important and long overdue debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West speaks here for the European Scrutiny Committee. I speak for the official Opposition, and I am delighted to support the cross-party amendment tabled by me, my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glenrothes.
For the avoidance of any doubt—there was doubt, because the Minister tried to sow it—the Labour party believes in an open, fair system of trade. Trade is one of the most effective means of creating shared prosperity and decent jobs. From the very first, when free trade was a radical cause in British politics, my party argued for open markets in the crisis years of the 1920s and ’30s, as mounting calls for protectionism led the world towards disaster.
We understand the power of fair and open trade today. We share the dream of the vast majority of people around the world who want closer ties between countries. We want to build trade links, not protectionist walls. Trade is one of the most important mechanisms for binding peoples together, but we want trade agreements that respect—
Greg Hands
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his party leader, who described free trade as a dogma?
Barry Gardiner
I am not interested in university debating points ad hominem. Free trade has become narrowed in its interpretation. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I have focused on the benefits that an open and fair trading system can bring, and that is what we want, but we want trade agreements that respect sovereignty and that benefit little companies, not just major corporations. We want trade agreements that make our society a more, not less, equal place. That is why I am delighted to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West.
I want to deal with the process first. I will try to be brief because we talked a great deal about this issue during the questions. The failure to bring consideration of CETA to a full debate on the Floor of the House should be a matter of not only regret by the Government, but deep disquiet for hon. Members from all parties. The job in front of the Committee today is very clear. It is not to decide whether CETA should proceed or not. It is to decide whether it is appropriate, given all the concerns there are about CETA, that the Secretary of State should honour the promise and commitment he gave to the House in his written statement and to the European Scrutiny Committee and that we should debate this on the Floor of the House.
I welcome the fact that we have finally today been given the opportunity to discuss this issue, but I cannot help but record that at its meeting on 7 September last year the European Scrutiny Committee recommended CETA for an early debate on the Floor of the House. It did so in view of the unprecedented public interest shown in this new generation of international trade agreements and the complex legal and policy issues raised for the UK. The Committee granted the Government a waiver to allow them to sign CETA at the EU Council of Ministers, but that waiver was conditional upon the promised debate being scheduled urgently to take place on the Floor of the House and at the very latest, it said, before the provisional application of CETA.
As I said, the Secretary of State appeared before the Committee on 26 October. He said that that he was “very happy” to have that debate on the Floor of the House and claimed that the failure to do so had been the result of scheduling problems in the parliamentary calendar. In reality, as the freedom of information request I referred to earlier showed, the Government had not been delayed by a scheduling problem in the parliamentary calendar at all. In fact, the first time the Secretary of State’s Department even approached the business managers to discuss a potential debate on CETA was 25 October—one day before the Secretary of State was due to appear before the European Scrutiny Committee to account for his failure to do so.
“What advice would you give”—
the Department asked—
“would it be better to have an actual date or do you think we can just tell the chair we are in the process of scheduling a debate”.
That does not sound like a Secretary of State committed to full parliamentary scrutiny and to keeping his promise. The Government confirmed in their subsequent letter of 30 November that they recognised a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons to be “of the utmost importance”.
Michael Tomlinson
Earlier in the Committee, the hon. Gentleman asked many questions about the process, but we are now in the debate. All Members of Parliament are entitled to attend the Committee and debate the matter, although not all Members are entitled to vote. I agree with him that it is regrettable we are not there; we are here. Should we get on with the debate?
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman is right that all Members of the House have the right to attend the Committee, but he will have noticed that this one and only opportunity for them to do so was deliberately timetabled at the same time that the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill is being considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. I do not believe that is a coincidence. I do not believe that is a mistake. I believe that it is part of a deliberate attempt to stop proper scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman talks about scrutiny and about moving this debate on to substantive issues within CETA, but the debate on the motion and amendment is precisely about whether this matter should go to the Floor of the House. That is why the process is important. We need to see that proper process has been kept, and sadly it has not.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that in the three and a half months that the Government have had to hold the debate, this is probably the best time for them to have it in terms of hiding bad news under the noise of the Brexit debate? This is clearly pre-planned to stop proper scrutiny, public debate and media coverage.
Barry Gardiner
I wholeheartedly agree. We must now move forward. The Government said that it was of the utmost importance to have the debate on the Floor of the House, yet we find ourselves 68 days later with a debate up in Committee Room 10.
The European Scrutiny Committee issued the Government with a waiver, to allow them to sign CETA at the Council of Ministers. The Committee made it clear that the waiver did not extend to the provisional application or conclusion of CETA. The Secretary of State chose to disregard the Committee. We have heard from the Minister today the reason why: because it was bundled. It is important that we hear from him whether the UK made any objection or moved any procedural motion during the Council of Ministers to unbundle it, so that the Secretary of State could observe the protocols that he had undertaken to the Committee.
I can only concur with the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, who said that it was a “serious” breach when the Secretary of State failed to honour the waiver he had been given. That stands in stark contrast to the many statements made by the Government in recent days to assure us of their commitment to respecting parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
In the same vein, there has been a marked failure to present CETA for consultation before the devolved Administrations, despite the fact that their Departments are all listed in the annex of entities covered by the public procurement rules of CETA and are thus exposed to CETA’s strictures on central and sub-central Government entities alike. I call on the Government to remedy that failure as a matter of urgency, before initiating the process for ratification of CETA in the House. I hope that the Minister feels that he can give an undertaking on at least that level.
With regard to process, the Government failed to meet their own successive promises to bring CETA forward for a full debate on the Floor of the House. The Secretary of State was, at best, disingenuous in the statements made to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. He explicitly broke the waiver that the Committee had given to him, when he approved both the provisional application and the conclusion of CETA, and his Department has failed to engage with and consult the devolved Administrations in respect of an agreement that has specific application to them. Those are serious procedural failures that show a disregard for the proper scrutiny of Parliament, and they provide, in themselves, a compelling case for the Committee now to insist that the Government bring that full debate to the Commons. However, there are substantive reasons as well as procedural ones and, in many respects, they are more compelling.
I turn, therefore, to the content of CETA. It will be a surprise to the Committee to learn that the Government have not commissioned any research on what the impact of CETA might be on the UK economy. That should be a matter of concern, because the Government have repeatedly claimed, as the Minister did in his opening remarks, that CETA will bring up to £1.3 billion extra to the UK economy. Let me straightaway say that I would be the first to cheer if that were a credible prospect, but the Government admitted in their explanatory memorandum of July 2016 that it simply took a projection of overall gains to the EU and divided it by the UK’s share of EU GDP to come up with that figure. That is back-of-an-envelope calculation. It has to qualify as one of the crudest and least credible methodologies ever adopted to project the impact of a major trade agreement.
Only one study to date has disaggregated the prospective impacts of CETA on individual EU member states, and it concluded that countries such as France, Germany and Italy would indeed see an increase in their exports as a result of CETA. However, the study is clear that the UK would experience a decrease in both its exports and its balance of trade. At a time when the UK balance of trade is already under so much pressure, the very possibility that we might suffer a loss of exports should give us pause for proper scrutiny. At the very least, a proper impact assessment of how the agreement will specifically affect the UK needs to be conducted. That further underlines the need for the promised debate on the Floor of the House.
Members will also be surprised to learn that the Government have failed to list in annex 20 to the agreement a single one of the dozens of great British food products that qualify for protected geographical status. The UK is the only major EU member state that failed to secure such protection in CETA for its food businesses. The “Geographical Indications” annex of CETA is page after page of products listed for protection by France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain, Romania, Austria, Hungary and the rest, but there is not a single one from the UK. There is no protection for Scotch beef, Scotch lamb, Scottish farmed salmon, Welsh beef, Welsh lamb, Cornish pasties, west country farmhouse cheddar, blue Stilton, or white for that matter. More than 50 other British products that should qualify for protected geographical status are simply not protected. How can the Secretary of State have failed to protect a single one of our products under CETA? No wonder he does not want the matter to be discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons.
CETA is also remarkable in its complete disregard for the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises. Even TTIP contained a dedicated chapter outlining the support measures that the EU and the USA would introduce for SMEs. By contrast, in all the 2,255 pages of CETA there is not one single commitment to further the export interests of SMEs.
In recent times, we have heard much talk of the Government’s commitment to parliamentary sovereignty. The Prime Minister has declared that leaving the EU will allow Britain to be a fully independent, sovereign country once again, no longer subject to
“supranational institutions that can override national parliaments and courts.”
Likewise, the Secretary of State for International Trade has given us his vision of
“Britain as an independent sovereign nation, with a parliament beholden to no one”.
Yet, if we look at last week’s White Paper, it spelled things out very clearly. It has an annex about CETA—it creates a framework of supranational institutions that are precisely designed to override national Parliaments and courts. Along with the CETA Joint Committee, which will have binding powers over sovereign Parliaments in future, CETA includes the investment court system, the latest form of the ISDS mechanism, to allow foreign investors to sue host Governments over public policy measures that undermine their profits. Under CETA, a foreign company will have the right to bypass the domestic courts and avail itself of its own privileged commercial judicial system to challenge any regulatory reforms that run counter to its “legitimate expectations” as a profit-making enterprise, claiming vast sums in compensation even when Parliament has approved the reforms.
We in the Labour party are opposed to any system that grants foreign investors private justice in their own private courts. As noted in the charter for progressive trade deals that we adopted last year, we uphold the basic principle of equality before the law, which requires foreign investors to abide by the same rules as everyone else, in the same judicial system as everyone else. Foreign investors can have full confidence in the British legal systems to obtain redress where their interests have been unfairly harmed, and the British people can have confidence that the courts will then balance the competing interests of foreign companies and the public good when making their judgments. A company, however, does not even have to win its case in the investor court system to undermine UK sovereignty. The very threat of a legal challenge and the scale of both costs and potential damages can make Governments back away from regulation that would be in the public interest, and can exert its own regulatory chill on Government plans for new legislation. It was a legal technicality that prevented Philip Morris from obtaining billions of dollars of compensation that it sought in its case against Australia’s law on plain packaging for cigarettes. That did not stop other countries backing away from introducing similar measures for fear of being hit with their own claims.
The Chair
Order. Mr Gardiner, this is a very comprehensive speech, and very well written, but you will think of others, won’t you?
Barry Gardiner
Indeed.
Canadian companies have been among the most litigious in using the ISDS powers that exist in other treaties, yet we have learned from parliamentary questions that the Government have failed to conduct any risk assessment of the potential threats of investor-state challenges to health or the environment. That is another reason for the Committee to insist upon a full parliamentary debate on the issue. Such risk assessments are absolutely standard in other countries preparing to adopt ISDS provisions in their trade or investment agreements, and the Minister really must explain why no such impact assessment was conducted.
It is not just Canadian firms that will be able to use CETA to challenge social and environmental protections. Around 80% of the 13,000 US companies that operate in the UK have active subsidiaries operating in Canada, through which they will be able to bring ISDS claims, using the new CETA investment court system. That means that, overnight, 10,000 US firms will gain the right to sue the UK over any new social, environmental or public health regulations that might adversely affect their profits in future.
In that way, CETA will open the floodgates to precisely the wave of suits that the UK Government were warned about in the cost-benefit analysis that they commissioned from the London School of Economics back in 2013. That study made it clear that providing north American investors with privileged rights would bring no benefits whatsoever to the UK economy, but would incur “considerable” monetary costs to the UK taxpayer, as well as significant political costs.
The investment court system has been rejected by the European Association of Judges, which represents 44 national associations, and by the German Magistrates Association. More than 100 legal scholars from European universities have issued a strongly worded statement warning that the inclusion of such powers in CETA would undermine not only the rule of law but the very principles upon which our democracies are founded.
On the other side of the Atlantic, a group of Canadian lawyers with direct experience of investor-state disputes have published a letter outlining the threats that the investment court system poses—
“the undermining of democratic regulation, the special privileging of foreign investors, the lack of judicial independence and procedural fairness in the adjudicative process, and the lack of respect for domestic courts and domestic institutions.
Those are serious charges that deserve to be debated in full on the Floor of the House of Commons, as was promised.
CETA departs from all previous EU trade agreements in being the first in which the EU has accepted the high-risk negative list approach to scheduling our service sectors. Under that approach, all sectors that are not explicitly exempted are automatically committed to binding liberalisation, including future services that have not even been invented yet. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West gave certain examples. One might consider the potential ban on microbeads in cosmetics as another thing done for the public good that could open the Government up to a suit.
The adoption of the negative list method in CETA marks a significant departure from the EU’s previous use of the positive list approach, whereby only sectors actively listed for inclusion are subject to the rules and disciplines of the agreement. CETA introduces the standstill and ratchet mechanisms, which prevent countries from reversing liberalisation commitments already made in their service sectors, whether now or in the future. The standstill clause states that Governments forfeit the sovereign right to introduce any reforms that could reverse the level of market liberalisation registered in CETA. The “ratchet” clause goes even further, in that future Governments will lose the right to reverse liberalisation measures that might be introduced in years to come.
There has been much concern about whether our public services are vulnerable to attack from the far-reaching provisions of CETA. Trade lawyers from within and without the European Commission have cast serious doubts on the validity of the repeated assurances that public services such as the NHS are safe. Suffice it to say that on the European side, the only sectors definitively carved out of CETA are audio-visual services—in deference to the French exception culturelle—and certain air services. There is no disagreement that health, education, post, rail and waste water services are all covered by CETA.
Individual EU member states were permitted to register their national reservations in the two service annexes to CETA. To compensate for the lack of certainty surrounding the status of public services, the German Government took out a comprehensive reservation to ensure that all their health and social services would be fully protected from the threat of market liberalisation under CETA. The UK Government entered reservations for certain aspects of privately funded health and social services only, including privately funded ambulances, but they failed to protect the core functions of the NHS.
Going into the full intricacies of this complex issue would take us beyond the time that we have available this afternoon, but the lack of clarity plaguing the situation is yet another argument for the fuller debate on CETA on the Floor of the House that we were promised. I simply mention that the official impact assessment carried out for the European Commission at the start of negotiations included a specific warning that health and education services should be exempted from any investor-state dispute disciplines adopted in CETA. The fact that the recommendation was not taken up in the negotiations or the legal scrubbing that delivered the final CETA text is yet another reason why we must avoid rushing into an agreement that could see us bound to a deal that may well be in the best interests of our fellow European countries, but not our own. Indeed, hon. Members might consider that it would be better to conclude a separate deal with Canada when we have the legal capacity to do so on our own, outside the EU.
Those are some of the most pressing concerns we have on CETA, but I will make one final observation. The Secretary of State for International Trade stated last week that he intends to adopt all the EU’s free trade agreements into stand-alone UK treaties with the trading partners in question. The Canadian Government, for their part, said that they see CETA as the baseline for any future UK-Canada trade deals. Moreover, Ministers in this country have suggested that CETA could even provide the blueprint for a future UK-EU trade deal.
All those considerations underline the critical importance of getting it right on CETA. They underline the critical danger of not submitting the agreement to the full level of scrutiny that it deserves. There is still time for the CETA debate to be scheduled on the Floor of the House, as we were promised, and for parallel consultations to be held with the devolved Administrations before the provisional application of CETA comes into effect. That was the original chronology stipulated by the European Scrutiny Committee. Certainly the process of ratification must not be initiated in this country before Parliament has had the opportunity to decide on this issue, so I support the amendment.
Greg Hands
Foreign investment is incredibly important to this country. It is also important that we protect our investors in markets such as Canada. It is important that we ensure those things are protected, while also protecting the right of member states and Parliament to legislate as they see fit, and the right to regulate. The UK will continue to work with other member states to improve the system. I restate that crucially, the ICS is not being provisionally applied here. Parliament and the UK will therefore have the option further to debate and scrutinise the system, and CETA in its entirety, as part of the ratification process.
In the time available, I will deal with as many of the many points raised as I can. The hon. Member for Brent North asked why there has been no impact assessment of ICS or its predecessor, ISDS. The answer is that ISDS has been in operation for some time. The UK Government have never had a successful case taken against us. All the cases listed earlier were not actions against the UK Government. I reinforce that the system does not, will not and cannot supersede national laws.
Greg Hands
I am going to make a bit more progress, because a lot of points have already been raised. We had an extensive question-and-answer session and extensive speeches that I need to respond to, to be fair.
A question was asked about the methodology for the £1.3 billion figure, which is what the UK will likely gain from the agreement once it is fully in operation. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, that was not produced simply by restating EU estimates. The figure is the result of modelling commissioned by the Government during the course of the negotiations, and it shows broad benefits across a range of sectors.
Barry Gardiner
I refer to the explanatory memorandum of July last year, which explicitly states the way in which the figure was calculated. I can find the exact reference.
Barry Gardiner
It is the Department for International Trade’s “Explanatory Memorandum on European Union Document: Proposal for a Council Decision on the provisional application of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part”, from July 2016.
Greg Hands
The figure of £1.3 billion may be the same one that the hon. Gentleman cites, but I am confident that my figure is the result of modelling commissioned by the Government.
I was asked whether environmental standards can be increased. Article 24.3 of CETA specifically provides that parties are free to establish their own environmental standards. The hon. Member for Swansea West raised fracking. Contrary to what he said, CETA does not get in the way of the right to regulate. Exactly as we would expect, it does not give fracking companies the right to invest in the UK if they are in breach of UK national laws.