Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

If all the existing members of the CPTPP ratify the agreement, we will increase our total trade by £3.3 billion. That is quite a lot less than £9 trillion. To put it in context, that total estimate of £3.3 billion equates to about a third of our annual trade with Luxembourg, and £1.7 billion of exports is about 15% less than we export to Kazakhstan each year. Joining the trans-Pacific partnership will produce an increase in GDP over 15 years of just 0.08%, and if Malaysia maintains its refusal to ratify the agreement, as it is threatening to do, that will fall to 0.017%. In real money, that is £400 million, so I suppose the Secretary of State could cover the cost of two new royal yachts instead of one. The reason that the projected increase in trade is so small is, of course, that we already have trade deals with seven of the 11 CPTPP countries, with two more on the way with Australia and New Zealand. The truth is that the extra benefits from joining were always going to be very small. Before the Minister repeats the projected figure of a 65% increase in trade by 2030, he would do well to remember that the increase projected by his Department is regardless of whether we join the CPTPP or not.

The Secretary of State puts the CPTPP at the top of her list of priorities, but where, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said, is the action on standing up for British industry and jobs? We have a steel industry that faces an existential threat because of her inaction. It contributes £2.1 billion directly to GDP and another £2.7 billion indirectly, as well as providing 34,000 well-paid skilled jobs in our regions and a further 42,000 jobs in supply chains. That represents a £4.8 billion contribution to the UK economy, as against a possible maximum benefit from joining CPTPP of just £1.8 billion after 15 years.

The impact on our economy and our steel communities of losing the British steel industry dwarfs the impact of joining the CPTPP, yet the Secretary of State continues to give all her priority to the latter agenda while resolutely ignoring the former and voting against Labour measures to defend the industry from total ruin. There is still nothing from the Secretary of State on the catastrophic threat to the steel industry from ending the safeguards, which run out next Wednesday. What a disgrace that the International Trade Secretary chose not to use today’s parliamentary time to introduce the emergency legislation needed to save the steel industry. Think of the 76,000 people who work in the steel industry and their families, for crying out loud!

There is a more direct connection between CPTPP and steel, so when the Minister responds to the debate, can he tell us how the Government will ensure that our membership of CPTPP is not used by China as a back-door route to dump steel on the UK market through Vietnam? What specific provisions will the UK Government negotiate—if they are going to negotiate anything—to prevent CPTPP from enabling the dumping of steel in the UK? Finally, will the Government take the action needed by next Wednesday and save our steel industry?

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jayawardena]

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

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

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

[Mr Jayawardena]

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

CPTPP

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on securing the debate.

There may well be positives for Britain from joining the CPTPP; there may also be negatives. The problem is that we just do not know, because the Government still have not published any of their negotiating objectives, or even an impact assessment of the deal. Last week, the International Trade Secretary said that Parliament would have full scrutiny of CPTPP through the Trade and Agriculture Commission—but the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not a parliamentary body, and its work can only supplement parliamentary scrutiny, not replace it. In the absence of any impact assessments, it falls to us to decide for ourselves, and I am sorry to say that it is not looking good for the Government.

British sovereignty, promoting British exports and jobs, protecting the NHS, agriculture, environmental standards, human rights, workers’ rights—those are just some of the challenges of the CPTPP. Let us address agriculture, environmental standards and human rights.

Farming has a proud part to play as part of Britain’s heritage. Over hundreds of years, we have developed high-quality produce with strict environmental and animal welfare standards. To continue that proud record, which is admired around the world, our farmers cannot afford for this Conservative Government to compromise on standards in trade agreements. The CPTPP could have some minor benefits to the UK’s agriculture sector but, as the National Farmers Union states,

“CPTPP includes major agricultural exporting countries”—

Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

The question for the Government is whether they will have to make concessions that will damage British farming as a price of joining the CPTPP. We do not know what increased market access CPTPP membership will provide for countries such as Australia and New Zealand, but we know that it will have potentially dire consequences for food and animal welfare standards. Will the Government be able to opt out of the parts of the agriculture chapter of the CPTPP agreement that would allow our agriculture sector to be undercut by lower standards of production? Major questions also remain over whether the UK will be able to retain current bans on the import of hormone-treated beef or chlorine-washed chicken.

Next we come to environmental standards. Palm oil is used in food products, detergents, shampoo, cosmetics, biofuel and even ice cream, but palm oil production is wreaking untold destruction on jungle habitats. Palm oil plantations cover more than 27 million hectares of the earth’s surface. The industry is pushing endangered species ever closer to extinction, and with their carbon dioxide and methane emissions, palm oil-based biofuels are estimated to have three times the climate impact of fossil fuels. Although the UK has a ban on palm oil imported through biofuels, Malaysia—a CPTPP member country—is one of the largest producers of palm oil, and Malaysian officials want the Government to scrap the protections that we already have against the import of palm oil. Palm oil is just one example, and it is emblematic of the potential dangers of signing up to a deal such as CPTPP. Will we be rule takers on imports of palm oil, or will we be able to insist on maintaining our high environmental standards? Parliamentary scrutiny would tell us.

Then we have human rights. Over the past few months, this Conservative Government have voted down amendments that sought to block trade deals with countries that commit genocide. The Foreign Secretary says that he would rather the UK ignored human rights concerns than lose out on trade agreements. Recently, the Government struck a deal with Cameroon, a country whose Government are carrying out a brutal subjugation of its English-speaking minority population. The Minister knows that even President Trump declined to sign a deal with Cameroon.

Now the Conservatives tell us that we should join the CPTPP, whose members include Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore and Vietnam, all of which permit child labour, forced labour, workplace discrimination, unsafe working conditions and the absence of trade union rights. Are the Government planning to negotiate tougher alternatives to the current clauses in CPTPP, which permit lower standards of production using exploited workers, or not? Although the Secretary of State for International Trade has said previously that the UK has no plans for a bilateral trade deal with China, does the Minister share my concern that a deal with China could take place by the back door via the CPTPP, or can he tell us whether the UK would be able to veto China’s application to join?

On human and workers’ rights, full parliamentary scrutiny and consultation with trade unions and human rights groups is essential if the Government want to build confidence that we should join CPTPP. Agriculture, environmental standards and human rights are just three of a number of CPTPP elements that urgently need to be addressed.

Businesses, workers, freelancers, consumers and the people of Northern Ireland are learning the hard way what a failure to negotiate effectively looks like under this Conservative Government. The trade and continuity agreement with the EU has left gaping holes in trading arrangements that the agreement was meant to deliver after the end of the Brexit transition. We cannot afford a repeat of the failures in the TCA with the application to join CPTPP, so will the Government reopen the 2019 CPTPP public consultation? At the time, it elicited only 55 bespoke responses from business, and the Government’s own surveys showed that only 21% of the British public knew what the CPTPP was. There is also the increasingly serious prospect that China may apply to join the CPTPP, which was not a consideration at the time of the survey in 2019.

Scrutiny of negotiating objectives, a full impact assessment and the reopening of the public consultation on CPTPP are all must-haves, as well as a guarantee that we will have at least as much time to examine the final terms of accession before a final vote in the House of Commons, just as the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand Parliaments had before their respective votes.

In the absence of scrutiny, the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade wrote to the Secretary of State, setting out 238 questions that must be answered if the Government are to have any hope of convincing Parliament that this is a good deal. Those questions included the following. Will the Government be able to negotiate exemptions from the CPTPP to address the concerns that I have raised today? What are the implications of joining the CPTPP for the retention of the UK’s current prohibitions on the import of hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken?

Will the UK have the right to impose import restrictions on products containing unsustainably sourced palm oil, and apply those restrictions to Malaysia and other CPTPP countries? How will the Government use their accession to the CPTPP to hold all member countries, including Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore and Vietnam, to the commitments made under article 19.3 of the agreement and demand their compliance with the UK’s high standards of human and workers’ rights? Are the Government prepared either to veto any application by China to accede to the CPTPP, or to withdraw from the CPTPP, if we do not have that right, so we do not end up in a trade bloc with China by the back door?

Finally, will the Government guarantee at least the same amount of time to scrutinise the terms of the UK’s accession before they are put to a vote, as was given to the Parliaments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Baker]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister. Like him, I have hugely enjoyed this debate. He enjoys my unqualified support, so I will turn my remarks to some other aspects of the debate.

I thought that the best part of the contributions from the Front-Bench spokesmen for the SNP and the Labour party was their vivid illustration of the shortcomings of virtual proceedings, because we were not able to intervene on them to explode the fallacies in their speeches. I regret that they are not able to intervene on me now, and I look forward to them supporting the full resumption of proceedings in the main Chamber and in Westminster Hall, so that we can resume our normal to and fro.

I thought the Labour party were progressive, and yet this progressive agreement is one that they do not wish to support. Of course there are problems with labour standards among the Pacific rim countries, and I would very much like to see those problems addressed and standards driven up. Of course we want to get children out of child labour, and that is why I support a progressive agreement that improves labour standards in the region. If we were to listen to the Labour party, they would have us do a deal with no one who had not already met the standards of the western world, the United Kingdom and the European Union. We can see why they want to be in the EU.

The SNP, of course, is speaking entirely from its own hymn sheet. It wishes to leave the UK and rejoin the EU—that is perfectly plain from what it has said. I refer the SNP, in its pinched and miserable assessment of our economic prospects, to an article by the well-known pro-EU commentator Wolfgang Münchau—he often, of course, writes for the Financial Times—in his own Eurointelligence:

“So much for the Brexit scare stories”—

he writes—

“Apart from a short-lived disruption of trade flows Brexit has been a macroeconomic non-event…If you look at the latest IMF data and projections in the graphic above, you don't find a discernible macroeconomic effect of Brexit in the first ten years after the referendum.”

[Bill Esterson]

Tell that to the people who are losing their livelihoods—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. Members participating virtually are not allowed to intervene on any speakers in the room. If you persist, I am afraid we will cut you off.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 15th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Jayawardena]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his personal commitment to rigorous scrutiny and ensuring that the Government are held to account? I am sure that he would agree that others could do likewise in being similarly robust. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made clear, it is our noble friend Lord Frost and the Cabinet Office who lead on that particular work. There are teething problems and there will be on ongoing frictions every day, but I am pleased to say that we are reducing those and are now seeing a return to pre-covid levels at our border. We will continue to work with and support our exporters in order to learn how best to do this. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that his Administration support his colleagues in the SNP and beyond to help support exporters.

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

I appreciate that the Minister wants to promote exports to some countries more than to others, but many of our constituents trade with Europe and need to safeguard their existing relationships before going looking for new ones. That is just good business practice. His Department telling exporters to open an office in the EU is not good practice when it is its answer to delays at the border that it was warned about. When are Ministers going to sort out the problems at the border that mean businesses are drowning in red tape?

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is working very hard with the Brexit business taskforce to make sure that disruption is minimised and businesses are given support. It is perfectly reasonable for me to raise the £200 million that has been given to the Scottish Government and how they are spending it, and the hon. Gentleman’s silence speaks volumes.

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

Not enough vets to inspect Scottish fish, not enough customs agents to process border forms and not enough time for exporters to adopt new rules of origin—it is no good the Secretary of State saying that the delays are temporary or promising compensation with money that has been already allocated to modernise the fishing industry, as the Prime Minister did yesterday. The Government have failed to prepare for the new arrangements at the border, so is it any wonder that a company such as John Ross Jr says that the Government have thrown them in the sea “without a life jacket”?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am not quite sure what the question was, but I have been clear that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is running the Brexit business taskforce and that we are seeing disruption minimised and businesses given the support they need. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is an urgent question immediately after this Question Time specifically on the fisheries issue, in which he will no doubt want to participate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He mentions the Which? survey. I was delighted to be the guest speaker at the launch of the Which? survey, “The National Trade Conversation”, where we discussed many of these aspects. To be absolutely clear to him again, our commitment that there will be no lowering of standards on animal welfare, food safety and the environment is absolute. I urge him again to get with the trade agenda and listen to NFU Scotland, which says it will

“strive to ensure that the best interests of farming, food and the drink and the public continue to be front and centre of any trade deals.”

That is exactly the right approach being taken by NFU Scotland. I urge him and the SNP to get on board with that positive approach for the first time, please.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Government say that they want to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, but some of its members allow growth hormones, genetically modified food in animal foodstuffs and insanitary conditions for animals. The CPTPP is already in operation, of course, and trade is permitted between its members on the basis of lower animal welfare and food production standards. How does the Minister plan to renegotiate the CPTPP to exclude the lower animal welfare and food production standards it contains, given that existing members of CPTPP say that they will not allow new members to change the agreement?

[Greg Hands]

The Secretary of State and I have told the hon. Gentleman time and again at the Dispatch Box that nothing in any trade agreement prevents this country from carrying out its own domestic regulation. We have been absolutely clear that a lot of the production methods and food standards he describes will remain illegal in this country after 1 January. He mentions CPTPP. I urge him to get on board with a positive agenda. Joining CPTPP, a trading group of 11 countries, including Canada, Singapore and Japan, will be a fantastic opportunity. I am not expecting him to support it, because of course he never supported trade deals with those countries in the first place, but I might hope he could reconsider now.

Trade Deals and the NHS

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on introducing the petition to us. I also thank my hon. Friends for their excellent speeches. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins).

The petition is about omitting the NHS from future trade deals with the US. The concerns raised by the petitioners would be relatively easily dealt with were the Minister, in a few minutes’ time, to commit not just to what he has said before about the NHS being off the table, but to putting protections in the Trade Bill—to passing in the House of Lords the amendments that were turned down in this place and retaining them when the Bill comes back here in the next few days or weeks. That would be the simplest way of dealing with what the petitioners are asking for.

The petitioners are concerned about the American healthcare system, the size and scale of the industry in America, the fact that it accounts for one in eight jobs in the United States, its importance to the US economy and its importance to shareholders. Those US healthcare companies have a responsibility to maximise shareholder wealth—as do all companies, of course—so they are only doing what they must do, and that means looking further afield. It means looking with great interest at the national health service. We know that they do that, did it and will continue to do it—for the next few days anyway, with the support of the Trump Administration. Yes, it is welcome news that we have President-elect Biden, hopefully, to take over—court cases notwithstanding —on 20 January, but this petition was signed when President Trump was in office and the petitioners had no way of knowing whether that would change.

The petitioners are concerned about the US objectives published in March. They are concerned about the market access being requested by US negotiators for pharmaceuticals. They are concerned about what that market access means in practice.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I will not give way to somebody who has not been here for the whole debate.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. May I explain something that might be useful for future debates? If hon. Members are not on the call list, they may not intervene in Westminster Hall debates under the present rules. I call Bill Esterson.

[Bill Esterson]

Thank you, Mr Stringer. The petitioners are concerned about the market access to the national health service that is outlined in the trade agreement objectives of the United States. A long-stated objective of American pharmaceutical companies is to take away the NHS’s influence on drug pricing, not just in this country, but across the European continent. That is a very real concern.

The petitioners are concerned about access to data. Alan Winters from the Trade Policy Observatory has set out those concerns in real detail: a potential cost of £10 billion to the national health service to get access to our own patient records; the payment of royalties to silicon valley, and legal action against the national health service to boot; and the dilution of data privacy rules if the American trade negotiation objectives are put into law.

Those are the many concerns that led people to sign the petition. Their concern applies not just to US healthcare companies, but to UK right-wing think-tanks and their link-ups with their American counterparts and allies. We have already heard the name Daniel Hannan this afternoon. He is a co-author of “The Ideal U.S.-U.K. Free Trade Agreement”, a document that was launched in London with the Cato Institute on the same day as the Secretary of State for International Trade spoke at the Cato Institute’s Washington office. I do not believe in coincidences, and I suspect I am not the only one in the room who feels that way. Like the petitioners, I am greatly concerned that this is not just about US healthcare companies, but about UK right-wing think-tanks and their representatives.

Let us remember what Mr Hannan and his friends have had to say. When the Cato Institute launched the report, the co-editor who spoke at the launch, Daniel Ikenson, said:

“Healthcare is a service, we call for opening services to competition… This is a free trade agreement, the purpose of liberalising trade is to expose incumbent business to competition, including healthcare.”

Including healthcare—it is there in the words of the think-tanks with which the Secretary of State works and which advise her on the Board of Trade, to which she appointed Mr Hannan only a few months ago.

I turn to the so-called comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or CPTPP, because this is not just about a potential trade agreement with the United States. We do not know what stage such an agreement is at—with the potential for a fast-track agreement under the current regime, or something else later on—but we know that the Secretary of State has made clear her desire to sign the CPTPP, an agreement with 11 countries on the Pacific Rim. The service chapter of that agreement includes negative lists, ratchet clauses, ISDS and health. There is no opt-out or carve-out for health. As the Nuffield Trust tells us, negative list systems, ratchet clauses and ISDS lock out the potential for Governments to bring public services back in-house once they have been privatised. Indeed, they drive further privatisation and prevent a reduction in it. They take away control, rather than giving back control, as some might say.

[Neale Hanvey]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the term “for sale” is used as a cover? Obviously, the NHS is not going to be put up for sale like a house, but parts of the services that it provides will be contracted out to a range of different private providers, who will suck up the funding in profits rather than ensuring that those investments go where they are properly supposed to go—to resource healthcare services.

[Bill Esterson]

That is right. That is the problem in America, where so much money goes to executive wealth or is wasted on administration costs, instead of going into patient care and medical activity. The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point.

I shall quote what the British Medical Association says about CPTPP. The BMA tells us that the UK would be unable to negotiate any additional carve-outs for healthcare services, and it says:

“We do not believe that the NHS is adequately protected under CPTPP.”

As a member of the CPTPP, New Zealand has an ISDS carve-out on health that will not be available to us, because the CPTPP is an existing agreement and the member countries have made it clear publicly that they will not give carve-outs to new joiners.

On 8 October, the Minister was asked about that in the Chamber. He told us he had met the lead negotiators for the 11 countries and had enjoyed discussions with them. Can he provide reassurance that what the BMA has said is not the full story? Did he ask the question and get an answer about whether carve-outs on health would be possible, given the existing agreement? When he responds, can he tell us whether he asked that question and what the answer was?

The Government’s answer to the points that my hon. Friends and I have raised is that the NHS is not on the table. If it is not, why did the US negotiating objectives state that it was? The Government say that the NHS is not in the existing agreements, and that is true. It is not in the agreements that we are currently signed up to, but this petition is about future trade agreements. For us, the CPTPP would be a future trade agreement. Right-wing think-tanks with links to the Secretary of State and Government also want this to happen, so a lot of reassurance is needed by the petitioners and by many more people besides.

The issue requires far greater scrutiny. I heard one hon. Member describing the process for the scrutiny of trade agreements, which we debated in the Trade Bill. In fact, the Minister and I have debated these matters more than once, in relation to more than one Trade Bill, and no doubt we will do so again. The reality is that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which provides the framework under which we operate, gives no guarantee of a debate or vote on trade agreements. It requires the laying in Parliament for 21 days of a trade agreement that has been negotiated. It does not provide a guaranteed mechanism for debate, because it relies on the Opposition being granted an Opposition day debate by the Government. The Government control the agenda in Parliament. Members will have noticed that, for the last few weeks, we have not had an Opposition day debate, and we went for a long period in the last Parliament without any Opposition day debates, so there is no guarantee of that process being implemented.

Whether a debate at the end of negotiations—if we are allowed one—is adequate scrutiny is another matter entirely. I come back to where I started. If the Government are serious about exempting the national health service from future trade agreements, they should put that in the Trade Bill, support it in the House of Lords and support it when it comes back here, because they have the opportunity to do just that.

We know that the CPTPP is a Government priority in the absence of an agreement with the United States. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will refuse to sign it without carve-outs? As to the lack of scrutiny, that is in the Government’s hands. So far, there has been a refusal to put the exemption in the Trade Bill, key Government advisers are committed to privatisation and we have concerns about the CPTPP. That all suggests that those who signed the petition were absolutely right to do so, and to have concerns not only about the United States, but about CPTPP as well. They are right to be concerned about the future of the national health service in trade deals.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Minister, before you start your speech, I ask that you save two or three minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) to wind up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I am coming to a conclusion.

The UK’s high standards of data protection will be maintained. The Government are clear that health and care data should only ever be used or shared lawfully, treated with respect and held securely, with the right safeguards in place. I am going to leave a few minutes for the response, Mr Stringer. It is absolutely clear that any trade deal could not be ratified without scrutiny by Parliament. There is also a separation between international and domestic law, so any changes made to the NHS through a trade deal would need domestic implementing legislation, just as much as if those changes were to be made without a trade deal. There is no way to sidestep Parliament. The Government will never agree to a trade deal with the US or any other country that risks the future of our national health service or which could undermine the Government’s ability to deliver on our manifesto commitment to the NHS.

There are, however, benefits of trade for the NHS. The whole debate has been focused on fears and threats, but there are benefits. To continue supporting public services such as the NHS, which we all value and from which we all benefit, it is crucial that we have a strong economy. Now that we have left the EU, we find ourselves with a golden opportunity to strike free trade deals around the world, which will help to fuel our economic recovery from covid-19.

In conclusion, the question is asked over and over again, but the answer is not going to change. The NHS is not on the table in any future trade deal. The price it pays for drugs is not on the table and the services it provides are not on the table. The Government will not accept any trade deal that changes our ability to regulate the NHS or any public services, nor will we agree to any measures that would put NHS finances at risk or reduce clinician and patient choice. Scare stories otherwise simply do not fit with the facts. The Government will always put patients and the sustainability of the NHS first.

As an independent trading nation, the UK is reaching out to partners around the world that support our shared values of freedom and democracy and making great trade deals, starting with our friends in the United States, Australia and New Zealand and the deal with Japan that we have already delivered. It is by working together as a global community and embracing values-driven and value-generating trade with like-minded partners that we will be able to beat this dreadful virus and build back a stronger economy to sustain our vital public services, not least our beloved national health service.

Draft Common Rules for Exports (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Thank you—are you Sir James?

[The Chair]

Not yet; only a matter of time. In the post.

[Bill Esterson]

Yes, I am sure, especially when you give four and half hour speeches on twinning arrangements with other countries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gray.

I am grateful to the Minister for his concise explanation of the common rules for exports and the implementation of the export control regulations transposed from EU law. The Minister flagged up a number of questions, because the use of export controls is not exercised lightly, has consequences and invites other countries to impose similar controls. We have seen that happen in the time period to which the Minister referred. As the Minister said, we saw shortages around the world in medicines and we all remember the concern about the shortage of paracetamol in this country. The Minister referred to the review of licence applications and the EU’s restrictions on PPE exports, which we also adopted. One of the consequences may well have been our difficulty in acquiring PPE from around the world—the plane loads of inadequate PPE from Turkey and a company registered in Mauritius, and inadequate and unsuitable face masks.

It is clear, therefore, that such controls are not to be exercised lightly and may invite retaliation, if not prompt other countries to take a view of us that is not in our interests. As Alan Winters of the Trade Policy Observatory has said, it is important that we acknowledge the role of reciprocal trade in our own fortunes, and acknowledge how important it is that we have strong bilateral relations, especially with our biggest trading partners – the largest being the EU. As a consequence of some global actions during the coronavirus crisis we have recognised that we need to drop import tariffs on soap and sanitisers—the example that most readily springs to mind. They also reinforce the need for a balance between a reliance on imports and investment in our domestic manufacturing industries. An over-reliance on imports has serious consequences if we are unable to secure essential supplies, and if other countries apply export controls as a result of our actions.

In terms of the application of the regulations by the Secretary of State, I have some questions about the Northern Ireland protocol. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns with the Department for International Trade about the exercise of the regulations. The Department noted that the European Commission will still have the ability to impose export restrictions under the protocol, but that it would only be involved under the aegis of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora – CITES. The Department said that there would be negligible implications for trade as a whole. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that that is his understanding, and that there is no prospect of any kind of blockade as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol and the impact of the regulations. That prompts the question about why so much fuss was made about that particular issue in the Internal Market Bill.

That leads on to the Minister’s other point about the role of Parliament and the implementation of the regulations. He said that the regulations would be laid in a statutory instrument, and that Parliament has the right to vote on them and to annul them. Will that always be the case? Will the exercise of the regulations always be subject to consideration by a SI Committee? The Minister said that the supply of PPE involved the review of the licence applications from various exporters. Can he confirm that a similar process will be used by the Secretary of State in future, and if not, what is the alternative? What evidence will be published in advance of a SI calling for parliamentarians to approve the Government’s proposed actions? Labour, including we few on the Opposition Benches today, has expressed significant concern about how legislative scrutiny is being exercised in this Parliament. We voiced that concern when the Trade Bill was under consideration. Given the impact on vital supplies, our exporters and imports, we are anxious that Members of Parliament are able to scrutinise properly regulations such as those before us today. Can the Minister flesh out for us what evidence base will be provided by the Secretary of State, and what will be in the public domain, so that Members can make informed decisions?

The Minister said that the regulations represent a small technical change, and I do not disagree but such changes can have profound implications and consequences on implementation. It is important that we scrutinise the regulations properly. I would be grateful if the Minister offered some assurance about the implications of the Northern Ireland protocol and the exercise of parliamentary scrutiny.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sefton Central for his contribution. In so far as that was a shift in Her Majesty’s Opposition in support of unfettered trade, I welcome that change in direction.

[Bill Esterson]

Really? You were going to say that whatever I said, Graham.

[Graham Stuart]

Well, I am welcoming a more moderate direction, and if that stretched all the way to the shadow Secretary of State, that would be good. I am breaking the golden rule of a Minister taking through an SI which is not to unnecessarily and needlessly provoke the Opposition. I am failing on lesson one at the start of my response.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned over-dependence on imports; we believe in diversity of supply rather than that there can be an over-dependence on imports. We believe in free and open trade, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks are not negated by his other comments.

On the negligible impact on trade of goods from Northern Ireland, article 6 of the Northern Ireland protocol states that there can be no fetter on the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, excepting under international obligations. After assiduous research, which is typical of the hon. Gentleman, he has identified the issue of endangered animals, but no such international obligations are currently in place, and if they were, the UK Government would seek to implement them along with the EU. We do not expect any change from the current position.

As to the manner in which changes are to be made, the Secretary of State has the authority to implement article 5 powers, which relate to an urgent situation such as we saw earlier this year. I know that the hon. Gentleman would fully support that. The Secretary of State would exercise those powers on the basis that either House could annul any such measure simply by passing a motion against the use of that power. In any case, those emergency powers would last at most for six weeks. I hope that he accepts that that represents a proportionate and sensible response to an urgent situation.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful for that helpful explanation, but perhaps I can pick up the point about information that would be in the public domain to enable Members of either House to make informed decisions. Hopefully, we would avoid getting to the point where either House might want to annul such a measure.

[Graham Stuart]

Information on the powers and the actions that are taken would be publicly available alongside other information, the precise extent of which I am not currently in a position to share. The measures will be shared with Parliament and it will be possible, as I have said, to annul them if either House is not happy with them. Under powers under article 6, there are no time limits set, unlike the six-week maximum under article 5, but those powers are subject to an affirmative SI. If something is introduced for the longer term, it will have to come before a Committee of the House, such as this one, and be passed that way.

I think I have pretty much covered all the issues raised. I cannot give the specifics as I do not have them, but the information will be provided when the measure comes before the House, which will be able to verify it, look at it and make a decision. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman that it will be an open process. As I have said, the regulations introduce a technical change, merely to bring into UK law that which subsists under European law.

Question put and agreed to.

9.42 am

Committee rose.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have been absolutely clear with all our trading partners and, indeed, with the EU that we are committed to the Good Friday agreement. We are committed to having no hard border on the island of Ireland, and on that basis we are progressing talks with the United States.

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

Hormone-injected beef should never have been part of the trade talks with the United States. Can the Trade Secretary confirm that she told her US counterparts that the UK would drop the digital services tax if the US dropped its insistence on market access for its hormone-injected beef? If she has not made such an offer, can she tell us why The Mail on Sunday says she has? After all, it would not invent such a story, would it?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I would caution the hon. Gentleman that not absolutely everything published in The Mail on Sunday is the gospel truth. I hope that, over time, he learns that. Let us be clear that the digital services tax is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country, not a matter for the trade talks, and that food safety regulations are a matter for the Food Standards Agency in this country, and not part of the trade talks.