UK-Israel Trade

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) on securing the debate and I welcome the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who is responding to his first debate as a Minister after his enforced Trappist-monk silence in the Whips Office in preceding years—I will not go into what happened before that. I welcome the Duke of Cambridge’s comments on his timely visit. He was right to speak about the importance of economic and trade ties between the UK and Israel, but it is also right to debate where we agree and where we have reservations about our relationship.

The EU-Israel association agreement has governed trade relations between Israel and the UK since it came into force in June 2000. It grants Israeli exports preferential access to the UK market, along with the markets of other EU member states. It was supplemented by an agreement on agriculture that came into force at the beginning of 2010, and by a mutual recognition agreement on pharmaceutical products that came into effect in January 2013. Labour would welcome a new trade agreement with Israel to maintain the same market access opportunities for goods, and to deepen a potential relationship in the trade of services, where the UK has an obvious comparative advantage.

As we argued in the Trade Bill Committee, however, no Government should have a blank cheque to introduce new terms of trade without first undergoing a process of external consultation with business and other stakeholders, as well as a proper process of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government’s delegated powers memorandum to the Trade Bill makes it explicit that all the UK trade agreements needed to replace the 40 existing EU trade agreements with countries such as Israel will be legally distinct treaties. Moreover, the same memorandum acknowledges that the powers afforded to the Government under the Bill would allow the

“implementation of substantial amendments, including new obligations.”

Business representatives giving evidence to the Trade Bill Committee expressed considerable concern.

[Mr Harper]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I will not give way, because we have been given so little time.

[Mr Harper]

But the hon. Gentleman said he was interested in parliamentary scrutiny.

[Bill Esterson]

This is relevant, because the Israeli trade agreement will roll over, which is covered by the Trade Bill.

However, the Government have so far failed to confirm that they would inform business of any substantive changes to the terms of trade between the UK and its trading partners in the trade deals being negotiated to replace the existing EU ones. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure business that the Government will let it know in advance about any proposed changes to the terms of trade under which companies will be required to conduct their operations, so that they can have the required input into those negotiations before it is too late?

The existing EU trading relationship with Israel is predicated on an understanding that export preferences are available to goods produced in Israel only, and not to any goods produced in the occupied territories. Furthermore, Gordon Brown’s Government introduced labelling guidelines to ensure that consumers are properly informed as to the origin of the produce that they see in the shops and as to whether goods are from settlements in the illegally occupied territories. I trust that the Minister will confirm that that crucial distinction will be honoured in any future UK-Israel agreement. I look forward to hearing what further measures the Government are proposing to take to reinforce clarity on that point.

[Mr Harper]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I will not give way; I have told the right hon. Gentleman that already.

Will the Minister confirm that any UK-Israel trade agreement will maintain the existing clarity about the fact that market access preferences offered to Israeli exports into the UK do not extend to goods produced in settlements in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories? It is extremely important that we maintain cross-party recognition of the status of the settlements in the west bank.

The Government have consistently reiterated that the UK considers those settlements illegal under international law, and they have continued to speak out forcefully against Israel’s expansion of settlements. Last October, the Foreign Secretary expressed his concern at Israel’s approval of settlement construction permits in Hebron for the first time in 15 years:

“Settlements are illegal under international law and undermine both the physical viability of the two-state solution and perceptions of Israel’s commitment to it.”

We agree with those concerns about the occupied territories.

From the Trade Bill Committee, we know that Ministers intend to replicate the existing EU-Israel trade agreement exactly. Will the Minister confirm that that will also apply to the human rights clauses and that the Government intend to enforce those clauses once we have left the European Union? Will he confirm that the Government fully support the human rights of all those who will come under the ambit of any future trade agreement between the UK and Israel? The trade preferences granted under the EU-Israel association agreement are conditional on respect for human rights by both sides. Article 2 of the agreement reads:

“Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.”

I trust that the Minister will confirm that respect for human rights and democratic principles will be an essential element of any new UK-Israel agreement.

Last year, Labour’s manifesto said that trade policy should prioritise human rights through our agreements with other countries. We reiterated the importance of human rights in trade agreements during the Trade Bill Committee proceedings in January. They are particularly important in the light of ongoing human rights concerns in Israel and Palestine, yet in February, in a written answer in the House of Lords, the Government stated that they had as yet made no assessment as to Israel’s compliance with the condition in article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement that it respect human rights and democracy. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will undertake such an assessment as part of a due diligence process when they move towards a new UK-Israel agreement?

Concerns about human rights can dominate the public debate, and if we had longer, we could go into arms sales as well. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the Government’s commitment to the consolidated criteria on arms export controls and the review of whether UK-produced equipment was involved in the use of lethal force by Israeli forces in the last few months.

It is important, however, to recognise the potential for successful trade with Israel. Together, pharmaceuticals and motor vehicles account for almost 30% of our exports to Israel, so supporting those sectors is important. The jobs that they and their supply chains bring are vital to supporting communities, but if the broader trade picture is botched, both sectors will be at risk from the non-tariff barriers that affect their supply chains, due to the just-in-time nature of vehicle components and the risk of drugs degrading in transit.

Our relationship with Israel does not exist in a vacuum; it is directly affected by our relationships with third countries and the wider world. Trade with Israel currently benefits from the fact that we are part of the EU and from the application of rules of origin and regulatory alignment. This weekend, the Cabinet needs to resolve its differences and produce a third way that delivers the certainty needed by business about border arrangements and non-tariff barriers.

Any trade deal that the UK makes with Israel must include strong guarantees that democratic principles and a fundamental respect for human rights will form a large component of that deal. Our policy on trade with Israel is to support a progressive trading relationship that brings jobs and prosperity at home and that also delivers benefits to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Any future UK-Israel trade deal must be judged against those goals—

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Far from turning our back on any trading partners, we are seeking a full, transparent, comprehensive and liberal trading agreement with the European Union, and we will seek others. When it comes to protecting British industries, we can do that only when we have a trade remedies authority in place, and I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that he and his party voted against the Trade Bill, which establishes that authority.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s reluctance to support EU countermeasures to combat Trump’s trade war, and the Government’s opposition to every amendment that we proposed to the Trade Bill and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, speak volumes about his Government’s true intentions. When will he give the trade remedies authority the board members it will need if it is to stand up for UK businesses and consumers? And when will he put an end to the impression that the UK’s Secretary of State would rather back Donald Trump’s policy of America first?

[Dr Fox]

That question was wrong on so many issues that I do not know where to start. Rather than being against countermeasures, the United Kingdom supported the European Union—as I have done several times in this House—in saying that we believed that what the United States did was incompatible with WTO law and that we were therefore against it. And it is the height of cheek to demand that the Government should put members on a board that the Labour party tried to prevent us from establishing in the first place.

Leaving the EU: Future Trade Remedies

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton). He made some extremely important points, which I shall touch on. I will also mention some of the comments from the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez).

Trade remedies are a key element of our future trade policy. Without adequate trade remedies, we will become the dumping ground for not only Europe but the rest of the world. That point was made to us by Gareth Stace of UK Steel when he gave evidence to the Trade Bill Committee. Trade remedies are the means by which we protect our industries and our economy—meaning producers and consumers. What that protection looks like is very topical, given the imposition of tariffs of up to 25% on steel and aluminium imports into the US—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South is not the only one struggling with his words today.

Those tariffs have been imposed by President Trump on the spurious grounds of national security. The danger exists that United States-bound steel will now be dumped in the UK instead, as we saw China do just a few years ago, which led to a crisis and the appalling news for the people of the north-east with the closure of SSI in Redcar. That is why an international, co-ordinated approach on anti-dumping is essential and why a common approach is needed to trade defence.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) on securing this very important debate. I want to touch on the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) has just said about dumping. In 2015-16, when the steel crisis was a huge issue, there were 92 EU trade remedies and those covering steel were vital in stemming the flow of under-priced Chinese steel, but ever since, the Tories have pushed back against any new measures in the EU to defend our industries from that arising again. I would like to know whether the Minister will give some assurances, particularly at this difficult time in the steel industry’s history, to reassure the manufacturers, the workers and UK Steel, which has been mentioned, that their industry will get the protection that it deserves and will survive the latest crisis.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention. I was about to make the same point. She is absolutely right to say that we need to hear from the Minister what his intentions are.

The EU does not want the UK to be swamped with dumped goods, whether that is steel, ceramics or washing machines, because if that happened, such goods could enter the EU market from the UK. Equally, UK businesses do not want dumping, because it is unfair competition. Lack of protection in the UK risks thousands of jobs in the UK. It is no good the Minister’s saying that it means cheaper goods for consumers—as I have heard him say on countless occasions—because the workers whose jobs are at risk are consumers as well. No job means no wage to buy the goods. A lack of trade defence is bad for producers, workers and consumers, yet that is what there has been far too often. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) is right to highlight exactly what happened in the steel industry, because when the Government failed to support EU trade defence measures against Chinese steel dumping and acted too late to intervene and save SSI, it was the Conservative group of MEPs, at David Cameron’s prompting, who were the cheerleaders in the European Parliament against Europe-wide action. That included their blocking attempts to end the use of the lesser duty rule.

However, protection and the use of trade remedies is not the same as Trump-style protectionism. Trade remedies should be about the creation of a level playing field that defends domestic producers against unfair competition from dumped goods. They are an essential policy tool to correct multilateral distortions. Failure to use anti-dumping measures, in the name of free trade, misses the point that for trade to be free, it also has to be fair. Adjustments are needed in the event of Chinese or Russian state subsidies or distorted pricing of raw materials, or to address Trump’s tariffs. The European Commission is due to vote soon on higher anti-dumping duties to tackle raw material distortions, so it is incredible for the Government to say, as the Minister has, that they will vote against those measures.

That brings us to the customs Bill—the Taxation (Cross-border) Trade Bill—and the Trade Bill. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said, we should be debating the amendments to the two Bills on Report in the main Chamber, not having a general debate in this Chamber, but as we are, let us look at what the Bills will do.

The Government are planning to give themselves the power to decide not to act on behalf of UK industries, in favour of the consumer interest. That will be a political decision, balancing the interests of jobs in one area of the country against the interest of consumers—a point made to us by George Peretz, QC, when he gave evidence to the Trade Bill Committee. Trade remedies are essential to protect British industries, whether that is steel, ceramics, tyres, chemicals or pharmaceuticals. The Minister will no doubt say—he has said it before—that the lesser duty rule has been effective in tackling unfair trade. He wants to continue to apply it at the very moment when the EU is moving away from it, so tell us: where is the evidence to support that approach? I am glad that he is nodding, because I am looking forward to hearing his answer. Ask workers who used to work at SSI. Ask the MTRA. Ask industry and workers. They believe in strong trade remedies and they want to know the reason why the Government are taking a different approach.

The continued application of the lesser duty rule will see dumped goods diverted to the UK, and as we leave the EU, divergence in trade remedies will add to the damage done to the UK economy. The Minister is fond of saying to me and my colleagues that we are against the creation of a trade remedies authority. He knows that that is not true, of course, but that does not stop him saying it. The difference between him and me is that I want the Trade Remedies Authority to be effective. I take seriously the importance of trade remedies in creating a level playing field for our producers so that they can compete in international trade in a fair market. That is why we tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading of the Trade Bill that stated categorically our support for the creation of a trade remedies authority, but we believe that the Trade Remedies Authority should be representative of all sides of industry; it should include representatives of producers, trade unions and each of the devolved Administrations. We tabled amendments to that effect in Committee, as did the SNP. In addition, the chair of the TRA should go through parliamentary scrutiny of their appointment, rather than being placed in post by the Secretary of State; Parliament should also have its say on the membership and non-executive appointments. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster that the Select Committee on which she serves should be scrutinising all these appointments. The Government are using ministerial discretion in the establishment of the TRA before the legislation has been passed that sets it up, and the Minister should explain why, as ministerial discretion is usually reserved for matters of disagreement on spending within a Department.

British industry needs a strong, robust and independent Trade Remedies Authority that will use international best practice. Our amendments to the customs Bill and the Trade Bill will be designed to achieve the objective of giving our industry a level playing field. The Minister and his hon. Friends should support our approach or introduce their own amendments to do just that; otherwise, workers in the Potteries and many more across the country will face the possibility of the same fate as steelworkers faced in Redcar just a few years ago.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Minister would be kind enough to finish his remarks no later than 5.42 pm, that would give Mr Brereton time to sum up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

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

[Bill Esterson]

I am puzzled by the Minister’s answer, as I was when he said the same thing in the Bill Committee. I do not understand why he does not see the benefit of having a mixture of independent members, who quite rightly have the expertise that he sets out, and a number drawn from different interest groups. There could be a balance of the two to reflect the needs of the different parts of the economy and the United Kingdom.

[Greg Hands]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As he knows, our aim, along with our European Union partners, is for the tariffs not to be applied in the first place. We argue that section 232 is not an appropriate means of doing so. If we want to deal with the over- production of steel—particularly Chinese overproduction —the best way to do so is through the G7 steel forum, where there are 28 outstanding recommendations to which we are still awaiting a Chinese response.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

UK steel faces a very real threat from dumping as a result of these US tariffs, but the Conservatives in the European Parliament led the group of MEPs that consistently blocked EU action against dumping. As the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance says, in the Trade Bill—which has mysteriously disappeared—the Secretary of State is proposing the weakest trade remedies system in the world. It is simply not good enough. When is he going to stand up for the UK steel industry and for UK steel jobs?

[Dr Fox]

It is hard to know where to start when there are so many wrong facts in a single question. Let us leave aside the European Parliament. It was the Labour party in this Parliament that voted against the customs Bill and the Trade Bill, stopping us creating a trade remedies authority in the first place. The Trade Bill itself only sets up the trade remedies authority; it does not set up the regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

Far from being forgotten, advocating further exports of high-quality UK produce is at the top of the Government’s agenda. I can tell my hon. Friend the good news that the latest international market to open up to British lamb is Saudi Arabia, with enormous potential.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

GKN has total sales of £10.4 billion, £9 billion of which are outside the UK. Profits from its operations in 30 countries around the world are repatriated to the UK. It will not be much of a global Britain if the Secretary of State’s approach is to stand idly by while a business like GKN that is so vital to our international trade is allowed to be subject to a hostile takeover that can lead only to its break-up and sale. Why has he stayed so silent on such a crucial issue for our trading prospects?

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

The allegation that anybody has stood idly by is utter rot. On Monday—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not been following the news—my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary issued an open letter to Melrose, the company that is doing the bidding, to request certain safeguards for employees, and so on, if the bid was successful. Melrose has responded, agreeing to give those very assurances. We took action on this days ago. He needs to keep up with the news.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

No.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has told us that he plans to replicate all the provisions of the trade agreements that the UK has, as a member of the EU, with Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. Those provisions include free movement of people in the cases of Norway and Switzerland, and a customs union with Turkey. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is the Government’s policy to replicate all of them?

Trade Bill (Eighth sitting)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

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

[Alan Brown]

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

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

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr Davies.

May I say how much I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun? The impact of HMRC closures, which the hon. Member for Livingston mentioned, on communities and on those losing their jobs was well stated. The same is true of my constituency, with the closures in Bootle and Liverpool.

The Minister advised the Committee in an earlier sitting that

“the resources given to HMRC post Brexit to deal with Brexit are already there.”

He also said that

“the power has been assessed and its likely cost looked at. It has been deemed to be relatively inexpensive and overall will not add a cost burden on HMRC.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2018; c. 261.]

I therefore trust that Government Members will support the new clause, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said. The Opposition will support it.

Of course, the Minister may well see fit to release the cost analysis he referred to in order to allay not only our concerns but those of the business community about the impact of additional duties on HMRC, given the significant task it faces in preparing for Brexit and in the light of the up to 40% cuts in staffing levels it has faced over recent years. The Minister referred to funding that has been made available to HMRC to support its preparedness to be Brexit ready. Will he tell us what that funding is, or confirm that it is the £250 million that the Government have made available to the cross-departmental and inter-agency border planning group?

[Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that HMRC is already significantly understaffed? There have been widespread complaints over the last two years about poor customer service and the closure of hundreds of offices across the country.

[Bill Esterson]

Absolutely. I know that many of my hon. Friend’s constituents in Warrington are affected by those closures. We clearly cannot on the one hand see cutbacks, and on the other hand expect an expansion of HMRC’s work commitments.

The Public Accounts Committee recently published its report, following an inquiry into our Brexit readiness, in respect of the border planning group. It raised concerns that

“HM Treasury’s usual business model is inadequate for allocating Brexit funding to departments who are forced to operate together, at pace, to a hard deadline.”

That seems pretty clear to me. When giving evidence to that Committee, representatives of the relevant bodies on the border planning group explained that funding was released on a case-by-case basis, and demonstrated that much of the funding had yet to be drawn down.

HMRC is still wrangling with HM Treasury over a £7.3 million drawdown to cover upgrades to the CHIEF customs system—I think that is what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was referring to—in order to level up functionality. HMRC also told the Committee that it was not expecting any shift in the risk profile of goods coming into the UK from the EU, and that it had “no evidence to suggest” that there would be increased trade flows with non-EU countries after Brexit. Will the Minister confirm whether his Department’s assessment matches that of HMRC, and that our standards and regulations will match entirely those of the EU, such that the risk profile of goods in or out remains the same?

HMRC has planned operating resources for no change after we leave the EU, per the evidence it gave to the PAC. Will the Minister confirm that it is Government policy for there to be no change in the regulations? Will he also confirm whether HMRC was right to say that there is “no evidence to suggest” that there will be increased trade flows with non-EU countries after Brexit? He is looking at me with a puzzled look, as he often does.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

Don’t take it personally.

[Bill Esterson]

I was not taking it personally. I have seen him with that puzzled look on many occasions, not just when I am speaking—often it is in response to comments from those his own side.

If the Department for International Trade has any purpose, it is surely to absolutely change the volume of trade after Brexit. That, in turn, suggests that HMRC was not right to say that there would be no changes in trade flows. It also suggests that HMRC is significantly under-resourced, which is more to the point, if it is operating on a no-change assumption. HMRC’s new customs declarations service is geared up for a fivefold increase in customs processing once we leave the EU. Surely the Minister accepts that that is likely to put severe strain on HMRC’s capacity and significant strain on its resourcing.

What the Government and HMRC have said appears to be at odds when it comes to standards and regulations, and whether they will match—especially the comment about there being “no evidence” of increased trade flows. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Livingston was trying to intervene, but she is not.

[Faisal Rashid]

I will give my hon. Friend a rest. Does he share my concern that if HMRC is not adequately resourced to collect and disseminate data in relation to our exports, placing any additional burdens on businesses to furnish that information is entirely unhelpful?

[Bill Esterson]

Absolutely. We made that point earlier in our proceedings and my hon. Friend makes it extremely well.

Coming back to what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, HMRC has suggested to the Public Accounts Committee that it will need 3,000 to 5,000 extra staff to perform effectively post-Brexit, but that will depend on the level of risk that Ministers are willing to take. The Public Accounts Committee received written evidence suggesting:

“There are very few International Trade businesses, both importers and exporters, who take Customs compliance seriously”

and that businesses need more support from HMRC to deal with post-Brexit requirements.

If that is the case, clearly a voluntary information disclosure, which the Minister has assured us the Trade Bill makes provision for, would be entirely futile as a means of gathering the information his Department requires. I note, as I did on an earlier occasion, that the Bill does not suggest that it is voluntary, and we are not aware of any business that would ever consider a request from HMRC to be voluntary in nature. The second point—that businesses require more support from HMRC to deal with post-Brexit requirements—is more telling; it further suggests that there will be a significant strain on HMRC’s resources if it is to carry out its existing functions, let alone carry out new ones.

If those new functions are subject to voluntary application, will they also be subject to voluntary roll-out from HMRC? In that case, perhaps there will be nothing to report in 12 months’ time. The additional burdens being placed on civil servants to prepare for Brexit are significant, and with limited resources being made available to support those endeavours, we are right to be concerned about the ongoing operability of HMRC, and indeed other public bodies. That is why we shall support the new clause.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Very briefly, I commend the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for tabling the new clause.

We have seen in recent days that the Government are usually reluctant to release any impact assessments or reports of any substance, for fear that they will prejudice negotiations and put the Government in the most awkward position. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take heart from the fact that it is now usual for the Government, 24 hours after saying that they will not publish a report, to decide that they will do so anyway. I confidently expect the Minister to stand up and say that those on the Government Benches cannot support the new clause—we will support it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central said—but the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun should not worry or be discouraged, because I have no doubt that within 24 hours, the Government will see sense.

Trade Bill (Fifth sitting)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

Division 3

Ayes: 9

---

Labour: 7
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 9

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not in any way restrict the ability—

(a) to make public services at a national or local level subject to public monopoly;

(b) to make public services at a national or local level subject to exclusive rights granted to private operators; and

(c) to bring public services at a national or local level back into the public sector for delivery by public sector employees.”

This would ensure that international trade agreements cannot restrict future decisions in respect of the delivery of public services.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. Amendment 7 seeks once and for all to exclude public services from the remit of any future UK trade agreements. That nut has proved extremely difficult to crack in all of the multilateral and bilateral international trade negotiations that the UK has been involved with to date. Given the object lesson we have just been taught by the collapse of Carillion and the deep uncertainty it has caused in relation to the outsourcing of public services, we are more determined than ever to get it right for the future.

Service trade negotiations were introduced to the multilateral trading system through the general agreement on trade in services. GATS was part of the package of multilateral agreements negotiated in the Uruguay round of global trade talks, which took place between 1986 and 1994 and led to the creation of the World Trade Organisation. Each country submitted a schedule of GATS commitments detailing the level of liberalisation it would offer to other WTO members on a sector-by-sector basis and across the four different modes of service delivery—namely, cross-border supply, consumption abroad, commercial presence and movement of natural persons. That was done by what is known as positive listing, which means that only sectors put forward for liberalisation would be subject to the GATS market access and national treatment provisions. EU member states were able to register their own national limitations to the levels of liberalisation listed for each sector, either by withholding sectors from liberalisation entirely or by attaching national conditions to the opening of their markets. That means that, across the 160 service sectors, the EU’s schedule of commitments runs to more than 540 pages in length.

Services have become an important element in the bilateral trade negations that have proliferated since the demise of the WTO’s Doha round. Contrary to what is often heard in the media, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the EU and Canada—CETA—included the most far-reaching commitments to services trade liberalisation ever made by the EU. They were made by a negative listing, which means that only sectors specifically listed for protection from liberalisation would be excluded from the deal’s market access and national treatment provisions. That is commonly known as the “list it or lose it” approach, and it makes for a much more extensive liberalisation outcome than the positive list approach that has been used in multilateral services negotiations.

In all of those negotiations, there has been considerable concern about the potential for public services to fall foul of WTO rules on monopolies, competition and market opening. To that end, the original GATS text included an exemption for services

“supplied in the exercise of government authority”.

That exemption has been carried over into most other bilateral agreements. We sometimes hear people who are new to this issue claiming that this provides a carve-out for public services. However, the exemption for services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority is closely defined to mean only services that are supplied on a non-commercial basis and without any competition from the private sector. There is consensus among all trade policy experts that it is a carve-out not for public services, but only for specific state functions, such as the judiciary, the army or the police.

The detailed paper on the subject published by Professor Markus Krajewski notes that academics and trade policy practitioners alike now accept that most public services, including social, health and educational services, as well as network-based and universal services, are not covered by the exemption clause. The EU agrees. The European Commission has confirmed that public services such as the NHS are not protected by the governmental authority exemption. The relevant passage from the Commission’s proposal to modernise the EU’s treatment of public services in future EU trade agreements states:

“The scope of the GATS includes services which may be considered by each Member to be ‘public services’. A wide variety of so-called public services, including certain activities relating to education, healthcare, postal, telecommunications, waste collection, water provision, electricity, transport, etc as they exist today in many countries, including in most EU Member States will have certain commercial aspects and may be provided to some extent by private operators on a competitive basis. Where this is the case, they would normally fall within the scope of the GATS as representing ‘tradable’ services.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Faisal Rashid]

Does my hon. Friend agree that modern-day international trade agreements extend into a wide range of public policy making and it is therefore essential that our Government maintain the capacity to deliver public services?

[Bill Esterson]

That is absolutely right. It is at the heart of amendment 7 that our Government and this country retain the right to decide who runs vital national services. Our concern from the body of evidence over the years—I have started to run through where some of those concerns come from—is that there is doubt about whether that will continue to be possible.

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

I am fully behind the principle of the amendment. Scotland still leads the way in terms of Scottish workers being employed under public ownership. We are looking at a public sector energy company and a public sector bid to run the ScotRail franchise. I completely support that public sector ethos. As was mentioned, the Bill is supposed to be about existing trade agreements being rolled over into UK law. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that even under existing EU trade deals, these public service operations are at risk, meaning that that would be a concern when any one of those deals was rolled over?

[Bill Esterson]

If the amendment is agreed, we are making sure that there is no prospect of there being a problem or concern about any of these things arising. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the important elements of public services that are still in the public sector in parts of the United Kingdom, because in the Labour manifesto last year that is certainly what we envisaged for the whole country.

We believe that those with concerns are right to be concerned, given that the European Commission has said the following about including public services in the multilateral services regime in its proposal on modernising the system:

“Indeed, it is important for the EU that GATS does cover public services, as the EU, for whom services represent 70% of the overall economy, and where EU harmonisation has led to the liberalisation of former public monopolies in areas such as telecoms and postal services, is also the world’s largest exporter of services and seeks access to other markets.”

That is why public reassurances and best endeavour commitments from Ministers are not the issue here. Legal certainty and absolute exemption are required, which again answers the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. Amendment 7 seeks to exclude, once and for all, public services from the fear of being trapped by world trade rules, by prohibiting Ministers passing regulations to implement the trade agreement if that agreement in any way restricts the ability to keep public services in public hands or to bring them back into public hands once they have been outsourced.

In the wake of the disastrous collapse of Carillion, I would hope that the common sense of the amendment is so overwhelming that it will receive support from the Government. We cannot have a situation where the outsourcing of public services to the private sector might end up entangled in trade rules so that future Administrations find themselves in any way restricted in bringing those public services back into the public sector for delivery by public sector employees.

When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the International Trade Committee last February, he was invited by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) to repeat the words:

“The NHS is off limits in any future trade deal.”

In reply, the Secretary of State stated:

“Let me tell you, as the person who will be in charge of negotiating that, it would not be happening on my watch.”

Let us hope that the Secretary of State’s commitment will encourage the Government to vote in support of the amendment and to ensure that our NHS and our other vital public services will never be pawns to be bargained away in international trade negotiations.

[Alan Brown]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I will expand briefly on the point I made in my intervention. We fully support the principles behind amendment 7. Scottish Water is still in public ownership in Scotland. Caledonian MacBrayne ferries recently went out to tender and there was a public sector bid, so that remains run by the public sector. Going forward, the Scottish Government are looking at the ScotRail franchise possibly coming into the public sector, as well as public sector energy companies. Of course, we all value the different national health services across the constituent countries of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central touched on Carillion, which is certainly a good example of how private does not always equal better. We have now seen the latest east coast main line fiasco—Stagecoach and Virgin were able to walk away and not honour their commitment to the public purse in the franchise moneys they were meant to pay. It is clear that that service has been run successfully in the public sector before and there is no reason why that could not be done again. We would certainly like to see more rail franchises operated by the public sector.

For those reasons, we would welcome these protections being added to the Bill. I would like to think that the amendment is not really required, but there does sometimes seem to be a confused position in the Labour party. The leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), has suggested that we cannot be in the single market and have rail nationalisation. This is not correct, given how many national rail companies operate in the UK and run UK franchises. Clearly, we can have nationalisation and be in the EU single market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I think we shall leave it at that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification of where he stands in relation to Tony Blair.

Protecting the UK’s right to regulate public services is, of course, of the utmost importance. UK public services are protected by specific exceptions and reservations in EU trade agreements where relevant. As we leave the EU, the UK will continue to ensure that rigorous protections are included in all trade agreements that it is party to. On that basis, I ask the Opposition to withdraw the amendment.

[Bill Esterson]

I will not be drawn on everything the Minister said, but I will go back to what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said in his short speech. The amendment and the Bill are about trade agreements and not about the single market. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North made it clear on Second Reading exactly what our relationship with the single market will be once we have left the European Union—if we are not a member of the European Union, it is not possible to have a say in the rules, so we are therefore not a full member whatever our relationship with the single market. He explained it extremely well.

The amendment is about the relationship with future trade agreements and about having the right protections for public services. I go back to what I said in my speech: the amendment is about ensuring that we have the ability in law to bring services back in, in the light of Carillion, whether they are to do with the NHS or other services. In the public interest—the public good—this country should have the ability to decide where its public services are run.

[Matt Western]

Back in February last year, as I understand it, the Minister told the International Trade Committee that the NHS would remain off limits in trade negotiations and that he would not sacrifice the Government’s right to regulate public services. Does my hon. Friend therefore share my surprise that the Minister is not keen to include the amendment in the Bill?

[Bill Esterson]

I share my hon. Friend’s surprise because, as I said in my speech, repeated public reassurances and “best endeavour” commitments from Ministers are not the issue; legal certainty and absolute exemption are required. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, perhaps he will tell us now that he will bring forward his own amendment later in our proceedings to achieve exactly that.

[Greg Hands]

We are talking here about future trade agreements, on which I have clearly laid out our position. I will just pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. I think he is incorrect in what he said on any evidence I might have given to the International Trade Committee last February. To be clear—and perhaps to my regret—I did not appear in front of that Committee until last week.

[Bill Esterson]

It is odd to be intervened on about the comments of another Member. I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington meant the Secretary of State. I thought all Ministers spoke as one in Government, although we have seen enough evidence in recent days, weeks and months to suggest that that is not entirely true. Today is perhaps the latest example, with the leaked reports from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. We are wandering, and I think the Chair might have something to say on that.

Over the weekend, the Prime Minister left a degree of ambiguity in her words on this issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North quite rightly reminded us, the German Government felt sufficiently concerned about CETA to exclude healthcare from its provisions. We should be very mindful of that. The Government are keen to, in their words, roll over that agreement, although with the acknowledgement that that may involve technical changes. Perhaps we can all agree that it will become a corresponding agreement.

There is a body of evidence from across the years showing the need for cast-iron guarantees to protect public services, so that they can be delivered in the public good and brought back in house where necessary. Without it being legally binding in the way we have set out in the amendment, it is difficult to see how that can be achieved. I will ask again: if the Government will not support the amendment, will they bring forward their own amendment that delivers on exactly that point later in our proceedings? There will be further opportunities in this House and in the other place to do so.

Question put, That the amendment be made

Trade Bill (Sixth sitting)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

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

[Greg Hands]

Right.

[Bill Esterson]

He didn’t tell you?

[Greg Hands]

No.

Mr Davies, I would like to start by stressing that the Government recognise the important role of making sure—that you are in the right place at the right time. [Laughter.]

I will respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford because he raised some incredibly strong points. Free trade is not trade without rules, as the Secretary of State outlined on Second Reading. It is vital for us to have the ability to conduct and operate trade remedies. That is the position we need to be in. I am therefore doubly if not triply surprised that the Opposition voted against creating this body on Second Reading.

My hon. Friend outlined—I know that we will come on to debate some of this when we consider the amendments—some of the key parameters that we want in the Trade Remedies Authority, in that it needs to have regard to a wide variety of stakes and interests in this whole process: businesses, workforces, consumers and so on. We need to make sure that our regime is robust in this space.

It is also important for the message we send abroad, because Members know that free trade has been questioned by more and more countries over the last five to 10 years. Many countries are looking at what the UK does generally in trade policy—and that includes trade remedies—to show that we are committed free traders. People are looking forward to the UK rectifying its own schedules at the World Trade Organisation as we retain and regain our independent voice there to make these points. Trade remedies are a vital part of that and it would be folly for the UK not to have a proper arm’s length trade remedies authority that can do this.

As for my hon. Friend’s points on efficiency and promptness, regarding some of the detail of the Trade Remedies Authority’s operations, I advise him to have a look at what is going on with the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Bill, which incorporates a lot of the day-to-day workings of the Trade Remedies Authority and is being debated as we speak in another room. Most of all, regarding his important points about the independence and arm’s length nature of this body, it is incredibly important to ensure that we have specialists on it who can withstand pressures, non-executives appointed on merit and not representing sectional interests. We need to make sure that our Trade Remedies Authority members can consider UK-wide issues, but also regional issues at the same time, without being beholden to a particular sector or region. Our objective is therefore to have an independent, evidence-based approach to trade remedies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

The Trade Remedies Authority

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 21, in schedule 4, page 14, line 24, leave out line 34 and insert—

“(a) a member to chair it, appointed by the Secretary of State with the consent of the International Trade Committee of the House of Commons,”.

This would establish the requirement for Parliament, through the relevant committee, to give its consent to the Secretary of State’s recommendation for appointment to the Chair of the Trade Remedies Authority.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 39, in schedule 4, page 14, line 34, at end insert

“with the consent of each devolved authority,”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to secure the consent of each devolved authority before appointing the Chair of the TRA.

Amendment 38, in schedule 4, page 14, line 34, at end insert—

“(aa) a non-executive member appointed by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Scottish Ministers,

(ab) a non-executive member appointed by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Welsh Ministers,”.

This amendment would require UK Ministers to secure the consent of the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers to one non-executive member each of the Trade Remedies Authority.

Amendment 22, in schedule 4, page 15, line 2, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) No person may be appointed as a non-executive member of the Authority under subparagraph (1)(b) unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has first consulted the Chair of the Authority on the proposed appointment, and

(b) the International Trade Committee of the House of Commons has consented to the appointment.”

This would establish a procedure for appointing non-executive members of the Trade Remedies Authority other than the Chair.

Amendment 23, in schedule 4, page 15, line 3, at end insert

“(3A) In making any proposal under subparagraph (3), the Secretary of State must ensure that there is on the Authority a representative of —

(a) producers,

(b) trade unions, and

(c) each of the United Kingdom devolved administrations.”

This would ensure that the Trade Remedies Authority must include, among its non-executive members, representatives of stakeholder bodies potentially affected by its recommendations.

Amendment 40, in schedule 4, page 16, line 20, after “may” insert

“, with the consent of each devolved authority,”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to secure the consent of each devolved authority before removing a person from office as the chief executive of the TRA.

Amendment 41, in schedule 4, page 17, line 27, at end insert—

“Offices

25A The TRA shall maintain offices in—

(a) Scotland,

(b) Wales, and

(c) Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would require that the TRA shall maintain offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Bill Esterson]

It is interesting that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford chose to speak in the clause 5 stand part debate, because many of the points he made relate to amendments 21, 22 and 23, which I now speak to on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends. During his interesting and thoughtful speech, he made very strong arguments in favour of each of our amendments. He spoke of the need to be evidence-based and objective, which would be much easier achieved by the balanced membership proposed by our amendments. Equally, he spoke of the need for a broad-based membership—I agree. He also made the argument for balancing the different interests that are involved in delivering trade remedies and an effective Trade Remedies Authority. I will be interested to see how he votes, given that he made the case for supporting each of our three amendments.

As ever, the Minister reminds us of the vote on Second Reading. He neglected to say that in our reasoned amendment we called for the need for effective legislation to implement the establishment of a Trade Remedies Authority to deliver the new UK trade remedies framework. We voted for that, and he voted against it. If he wants to tell me why he voted against an amendment that called for the establishment of a Trade Remedies Authority to deliver the new UK trade remedies framework, he can do so now.

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to do so. We all know that the usual purpose of a reasoned amendment is that it allows an Opposition party to put forward a point of view about a Bill while nevertheless still allowing it not to oppose the Bill itself. That is the standard way in which reasoned amendments operate. We were simply amazed that once his reasoned amendment fell he nevertheless opposed the Bill. That shows that he opposes the continuity of these trade agreements, the creation of a Trade Remedies Authority, and data-sharing powers that will help our exporters. I am afraid that that is on the record from his vote on Second Reading.

[Bill Esterson]

I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that we voted to support the creation of a Trade Remedies Authority and that he voted against it. I think that was very clear in that lengthy intervention.

As the explanatory statements make clear, amendments 21, 22 and 23 would have the effect of giving Parliament the power of consent over the appointment of a chair to the Trade Remedies Authority set up by the Bill. They would establish a procedure for the appointment of non-executive members to the authority, and ensure that the TRA includes representatives of key stakeholder bodies among its non-executive membership—all things that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford requested.

[Mr Prisk]

I actually said that the non-executive members need not to be beholden to a sectional interest and they need to be able to make a corporate decision. My worry is that amendment 23 does precisely the former. There are some 5.3 million people in the west midlands and some 5.6 million in Scotland. Presumably, according to the logic with which the hon. Gentleman has drafted the amendment, we should also have somebody from the west midlands. I am sure that people from Yorkshire would then like to have someone from Yorkshire. My concern is that ultimately we will end up with one person representing not the broad picture, but a sectional interest. I am very happy to have people who have links and connections to those areas, but to appoint them on the basis of where they come from or to represent one sectional interest would be wrong. Merit should win.

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

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

[Hannah Bardell]

rose—

[Faisal Rashid]

rose—

[Bill Esterson]

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

[Hannah Bardell]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

[Faisal Rashid]

The role of Parliament in overseeing the creation of the Trade Remedies Authority was described to the Committee as “critical” by Chris Southworth of the International Chamber of Commerce. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that if the Government do not support the amendment, they are clearly choosing to ignore the voice of the ICC? Does he also share my concerns about the repercussions that that might have for the future of UK trade?

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent intervention, as he has done throughout Committee. That body has to carry the confidence of all sides of industry and all parts of society and of the United Kingdom. It is crucial that it does so, which is why we are attempting to push the amendments through. I imagine, from what the Minister has said, that he is unlikely to support us—why change the habit? Perhaps, however, he will explain how those points will be addressed and how the Government will respond to the witnesses mentioned by my hon. Friend, as well as some of the other witnesses.

The Minister is not letting on that trade remedies are not simply a technical detail of trade policy. They have the potential to be highly political. In essence, trade remedies defend domestic producers from unfair competition from dumped goods from other countries. The remedies are an essential policy tool to correct multilateral distortions, as Mr Stevenson, the specialist adviser to the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance told us last week. Deciding when and how to use such trade defence instruments, however, is a political decision, and a highly political one at that, as is that on the membership of the TRA. It is crucial to get the membership right, to ensure that the TRA makes correct, balanced and evidence-based recommendations—as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford put it—to Government.

As the system is to operate under this Bill and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, the Secretary of State has the capacity to use an economic interest test to allow the Government not to take action even when problematic trade behaviour by another country has been identified. In other words, the Government will have the capacity to decide that even when harm is being done to our domestic industries, other interests such as the consumer interest may outweigh those of the producers affected. To quote the words of George Peretz, QC, who we heard from last week:

“That seems to me to be a political position: it is balancing the interests of jobs in a particular area of the country against the interests of consumers across the country”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 55, Q105.]

The same point was made on Second Reading by a number of hon. Members, including about the Scotch whisky and steel sectors.

The Minister cannot pretend that the Bill and the structures created by it are apolitical and purely technocratic. Trade remedies can make the difference between the survival of an industry and its decimation. They can protect thousands of jobs or let them be exported overseas. They can defend our foundation industries or let them fall by the wayside. I am sure the constituents of the hon. Member for Corby can attest to that.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

That’s why I voted to set it up.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman comments from a sedentary positon; perhaps he is allowed to do that.

[Alan Brown]

I just want to respond to the comments made by the hon. Member for Corby from a sedentary position. It is ironic that he is saying yet again that we should have voted for the Bill on Second Reading and then tabled amendments, even though the Government have voted against every single amendment.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman is of course right. I remind the hon. Member for Corby and his colleagues that he and they all voted against our reasoned amendment, which called for the setting up of the Trade Remedies Authority.

Trade remedies are absolutely essential in order to protect British industries, including the steel sector, ceramics, tyres, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. As Gareth Stace of UK Steel told us,

“Trade remedies...are the safety valve that enables free trade to take place.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 66, Q127.]

One need only look at the steel sector to understand why trade remedies are necessary and also how incredibly political they can be.

As the steel crisis highlighted, when no trade remedies are put in place to defend our steel industry against dumping from countries such as China, thousands of jobs are lost and entire communities are negatively affected. We were reminded of that at BEIS questions earlier today, when my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) raised the ongoing devastating impact on the community and workers who lost their jobs at SSI. She spoke of the continuing struggle to replace their jobs and to create prosperous alternatives for her constituents. So far, that has not been resolved.

During the steel crisis the Conservative Government under David Cameron acted as the ringleader of a group of countries in Europe trying to block efforts at the European Council to put in place more rigorous anti-dumping measures against China by lifting the lesser duty rule. British steel was going through an existential crisis and the Conservative Government did not use all the policy tools available to them to restore a level playing field. The EU ended up imposing tariffs on unfairly traded steel, but they were much lower than those imposed by other countries such as Australia and the USA.

Now that we are leaving the European Union the Government have rightly set out to create an independent trade remedy regime, yet they seem to not have left their bad habits behind. They still envisage having a lesser duty rule in place. On top of that, they have introduced an economic interest test in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill. Once again British producers do not make it to the top of the list of concerns for the Secretary of State and Ministers. They seem to want to champion only consumer interests. That is why we believe it is important that Parliament has a say in the appointments to the Trade Remedies Authority and why we believe non-executive members of the TRA should include representatives of producers and trade unions from each of the devolved Administrations. There needs to be an in-built system of checks and balances so that all interests are taken into consideration and all voices are heard. As Mr Southworth from the International Chambers of Commerce said on Tuesday last week, issues such as steel dumping have

“huge implications for a lot of people, particularly in geographies that tend to be vulnerable...It is important that everyone has a chance to have their say about what that decision should be.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 26, Q57.]

Even in the short time that the Department for International Trade has been in existence, its track record on being inclusive and mindful of the input of stakeholders has not been ideal. The consultation on the Trade Remedies Authority ended on the evening of 6 November. By early morning on the 7th, the Trade Bill had been published and delivered to Parliament. James Ashton-Bell of the CBI diplomatically said that

“the optics were not ideal.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 34, Q79.]

What a disgrace. Why did the Government bother to have a consultation when they clearly had no intention of reading the responses, let alone taking on board the suggestions? That is a clear breach of the consultation principles issued to all Departments in 2016.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I have a quick question: does the hon. Gentleman agree with his party leader that free trade itself is a dogma?

[Bill Esterson]

I think we should press on. The Minister has enough to worry about.

As Mr Stevenson of the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance told us last week:

“Some see trade remedies as purely protectionist and would abolish them completely”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 65, Q124.]

It is key, therefore, that Parliament, through its relevant Committee, should get to scrutinise who the Secretary of State appoints as the head of the relevant body, and that it should make sure it is someone with the competence, experience and disposition to stand up for the best interests of British industries and the British people.

Similarly, amendment 22 would ensure that the Secretary of State cannot appoint non-executive members to the TRA at his whim and fancy. He should not be able to stack the TRA with members of a certain political and ideological persuasion that would mean they would be less likely to act on complaints brought forward and less likely to recommend measures. We heard from Mr Stevenson of the MTRA last week that if all its members

“thought trade remedies were protectionist, we would never get any trade remedies through”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 65, Q124.]

Parliamentary scrutiny of the membership of the TRA is even more important in the light of the evidence given to this committee by Mr Tom Reynolds of the British Ceramic Confederation. He highlighted to us at column 67 that, within the context of our membership of the European Union, the UK Government took on the role of the “liberal counterweight” opposing strong trade defence measures. However, now that we will not have the other 27 member states, of which a majority is for trade remedies, we cannot afford to take the same approach.

Unfortunately, according to Mr Reynolds, UK civil servants and experts are “steeped in that heritage” of the UK being a neo-liberal counterweight. We cannot afford to let that institutional memory dictate how our independent trade defence policy is conducted. We need to ensure that the non-executive board of the TRA is a watchdog that ensures balance in the system. The only way to do that is to allow this House, through the appropriate Committee, to have a say on the appointment of the board members.

Finally and most importantly, amendment 23 would ensure that the TRA includes among its non-executive members representatives of stakeholder bodies potentially affected by the recommendations of the TRA. Those stakeholders are the producers, the trade unions representing the workers and a representative of each of the devolved Administrations. We have put that into our amendment because we believe that the key stakeholders affected by unfair trading practices should be represented around the table where decisions are being made that affect the survival of their industries and jobs, and the wellbeing of their communities. The TRA will only be enriched by experts from industry, trade unions and the devolved Administrations, who are the ones facing the realities of dumping on a day-to-day basis and close to home.

[Matt Western]

Does my hon. Friend have a view on the recent situation with Bombardier and the involvement of the US trade body that found in its favour? Are there any learnings from that? I am specifically interested in the role of the unions on that body, as well as industry representatives.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that. The Bombardier experience shows that countries are prepared to apply very significant trade remedies. We have to be realistic. We need to be in a position to have our own trade remedies system, be prepared to use them and not expect that not using such processes is always appropriate. That is why we must have the right membership, including from the trade unions, to protect jobs, as my hon. Friend has said, because otherwise we leave ourselves wide open.

[Greg Hands]

Can the hon. Gentleman be absolutely clear? I am intrigued. Is he saying therefore that he agrees with the US approach—not having a lesser duty rule and allowing these very large punitive tariffs to be put on British industry, Bombardier in this case, exporting to the United States? I think he is agreeing that he likes the US approach.

[Bill Esterson]

That is not what I was suggesting. I am saying that we have to recognise that countries such as the US, as demonstrated by this case, are prepared to act. We have to be realistic about that. We have to make sure that we have the right representation on the TRA so that we are making the right case. I do not think 300% tariffs is a good idea at all, but we certainly need to be able to make the right judgments when such things apply. There is a balance between protectionism and the approach in the Bombardier case.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be foolish to look at one specific example of an outrageous situation, as we have had with Bombardier in the US? Thank goodness that the ITC came to the correct conclusion there. Just because it is possible to arrive at the wrong conclusion should not mean that one judges the lesser duty rule simply on that.

[Bill Esterson]

Of course that is right. My hon. Friend deserves credit for taking the time and effort to go and meet the ITC and to make the case with the trade unions and others from this country. The lobbying that he and others were involved in played no small part in delivering for workers and business in the UK. He deserves a lot of credit for that. I will return to my speech—

[Matt Western]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

What a good idea.

[Matt Western]

This reminds me of Saturday afternoons watching wrestling. [Laughter.] The crucial thing about the TRA is that it is a facilitator, not a barrier, to ensure the needs of sectors and those involved in the sectors, whether workers or businesses. That came across very clearly in the representations from witnesses last week as something they want. My hon. Friend mentioned the chairmanship. As with the Office for Budget Responsibility, it is crucial that the chair is seen as an important role and not some political lackey.

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hannah Bardell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the point is to have a UK-wide perspective, and for the appointments to be based on expertise in that space, and made following good governance principles. That is the objective for the membership of the TRA.

On trade remedies, I think the hon. Member for Sefton Central impugned my hon. Friend the Member for Corby by saying that he was not sufficiently interested in the steel industry. I have known my hon. Friend for some time, and he is incredibly passionate about the steel industry. He takes a keen interest in the operations of the TRA, and is quite expert in this space. He knows that much of the detail of the operation of the TRA is not in this Bill but in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill.

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister really should not make such accusations; he knows that is not what I said or what I meant. I am well aware that the hon. Member for Corby takes a keen interest in the subject, along with all Members representing constituencies across the country with a steel industry presence; they work together extremely hard, cross-party, to try to support the steel industry. It was a completely inaccurate accusation, and I hope the Minister will withdraw it. My criticism was entirely of the Government and their failure in the European Union to support the measures that were needed.

[Greg Hands]

I think we are in one of those cycles; I am alleged to have impugned the hon. Gentleman by saying that he impugned my hon. Friend the Member for Corby. I will just leave it on the record that my hon. Friend is a doughty defender of the steel industry in the House, and through his influence with the Government.

I think the hon. Member for Sefton Central suggested that the Secretary of State should not appoint members at all. We need the Secretary of State to appoint the non-executive members in order to ensure that they are directly accountable to an elected representative with responsibility for the whole UK, because ultimately trade remedy measures will be taken across the UK. That person is quite properly the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament. That is broadly in line with what happens in other arm’s length bodies.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about putting in place the right framework for the TRA. We are clear that we will operate a robust trade remedies regime to protect UK industry from injury caused by unfair trading practices and unforeseen surges in imports. I said of the TRA at the very beginning that free trade does not mean trade without rules. Rules are incredibly important, and making sure we have a strong defensive capability is a key part of that. That is why there will be a presumption in favour of measures in all dumping and subsidies investigations—that is in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill.

It is right that there is a mechanism for identifying whether measures are likely to have a disproportionate impact on other economic actors in the UK, such as downstream industries and consumers, and whether they might have a regional impact or an impact in one of the nations of the United Kingdom. The economic interest test ensures that the trade remedy system takes into account wider economic considerations in addition to the interests of UK producer industries. It is a chance to step back and consider whether measures would be in the best economic interests of the UK and will ensure that measures are not imposed where that is not the case.

Points were raised about different balances within the board. We have to come back to the overriding factor that should prevail to ensure that we comply with good governance principles: appointments are made following an open, competitive process on the basis of merit and on the basis of being able to discharge the function of looking at the whole question of a particular issue that might be prompting a trade remedy on a UK-wide basis. That is why it is important that we have built appropriate processes into the framework set out in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill to ensure that impacts on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are given due consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it allows me to say that I do not agree. The non-executive members are not intended to be representatives of particular interests or particular parts of the United Kingdom, or particular sectors or producers or consumers or trade unions. The idea is that all members of the board have the ability to think right across the question of what is happening in terms of the injury that has been created or reported to have been created. What is the best way of assessing all the evidence? What is the best way of doing, for example, the economic interest test? I entirely disagree with him. These people are not representatives. They are able to take a dispassionate, evidence-based and informed decision, looking at all of the available evidence.

The TRA will consider the wider impact of trade remedy measures as part of the economic interest test. As part of that process, the TRA will consider the impact of measures on different groups across the UK, including any regional or distributional consideration. It is important to understand that its members do not have to be, and in fact should not be, representatives of those regional distributional considerations or producer or consumer and so on. They are designed to look at the evidence and come to a recommendation based on the overall evidence in front of them. It will also consider the likely impact on affected industries and consumers. We would expect the TRA to gather information where relevant to inform the economic interest test. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Bill Esterson]

I will not be withdrawing the amendment. The Minister talks about good governance. Non-executives often, on many boards, in many situations, come from membership organisations. They then use their judgment on a wide range of issues, but they come from those membership organisations. I am afraid he is wrong about that. He speaks of the risk of political appointments. There is one way to ensure that this is a politicised series of appointments: to leave everything in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is for sure. If the appointment process is so watertight, why is there a whole section in the Bill dedicated to what happens if the chief executive is appointed by the Secretary of State? It is being anticipated as, I guess, a quite likely scenario.

The Minister talked about accountability to Parliament, but there is none under the Bill. There are a number of examples of parliamentary scrutiny of appointments. Select Committees play a significant role in a number of appointments to public office. The Treasury Committee gives its consent to the appointment and dismissal of members of the Budget Responsibility Committee. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has the power of veto over the appointment of an Information Commissioner, and there are a number of examples of pre-appointment hearings for significant public appointments.

When something is so crucial to our economic and international trade future, why do the Government not care to involve the Select Committee in the appointments? If they will not support the amendments, I look forward to them coming forward and dealing with the point that the Minister made in his summing up about how he expects accountability to be delivered to Parliament. I will put our three amendments to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Trade Bill (Seventh sitting)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

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

[Hannah Bardell]

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

Welcome back to the Chair, Ms Ryan. May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Livingston on redefining the term “moving an amendment”? She was actually in motion as she did it, so I commend her on her dexterity.

It is important that we create an independent and objective investigation process in which businesses and consumers will have full confidence, as I referred to previously. For this reason we are setting up the TRA as an arm’s length body with the appropriate degree of separation from the Department for International Trade. The Trade Bill requires the TRA to produce an annual report on the performance of its functions during each financial year. That must then be sent to the Secretary of State, who must lay the report before Parliament.

Let me deal with the four amendments. Amendments 42 and 43 are concerned with the sharing of the reports, requiring the TRA to submit annual reports on the performance of its functions to each devolved Administration, in addition to sharing copies with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Much as I strongly endorse our consulting with and involving devolved Administrations at all stages of this process, and expect the TRA to pay due heed to the devolved Administrations and to involve them as well, I must tell the hon. Lady that the amendments are unnecessary. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to lay a copy of the TRA’s annual report before the UK Parliament, and at that point it will be a publicly available document for all to see right across the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 24 is on the annual report itself. The Bill already requires the annual report to be produced

“as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which it relates.”

The amendment, which seeks to impose an arbitrary fixed deadline for when the TRA is required to produce the report, is therefore also unnecessary. We are balancing giving the TRA a statutory requirement to produce the report on time, while recognising the importance of safeguarding operational flexibility, which is particularly important for a new organisation.

Amendment 25, on the investigation report, is interesting. I have referred a few times to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which is in Committee in another room. As laid out in that Bill, the TRA will be responsible for making recommendations on trade remedies cases to the Secretary of State. However, the amendment could lead to recommendations made by the TRA being released publicly before the Secretary of State has reached a final decision. Indeed, it is unlikely that the Secretary of State would make the decision in five days given the potential need to consult across Government. In my view, this could undermine the impartiality of trade remedies recommendations by increasing lobbying of Ministers by any parties affected by the TRA’s recommendations, be they producers, consumers or other stakeholders.

--- Later in debate ---

Collection of exporter information by HMRC

[Bill Esterson]

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may, by regulations, request any person to provide, or make provision authorising officers of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to disclose, prescribed information for the purposes of assisting the Secretary of State to establish the number and identity of persons exporting goods and services from the United Kingdom”.

This would ensure that, where HMRC already has this information, it may be shared with the Secretary of State.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 27, in clause 7, page 4, line 38, at end insert—

“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (1) “prescribed information” means the names and addresses of persons who have exported goods covered by a prescribed code.”

This would ensure that the information to be collected pertains only to exports recognised as such for official purposes, in line with the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.

Amendment 28, in clause 7, page 4, line 38, at end insert—

“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2A) “prescribed code” means the commodity code or other identifier applied to a category of goods or services in connection with the preparation of statistics on exports from the United Kingdom (whether or not it is also applied for other purposes).”

This further qualifies what “prescribed information” means.

Amendment 29, in clause 7, page 5, line 3, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not make provision that could be made by regulations under section 10 of the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.”

This would avoid duplication, in respect of the collection of information from exporters, with the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.

Amendment 32, in clause 8, page 5, line 17, leave out from “trade” to end of line 19.

This would remove the power granted by the Bill to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or anyone acting on their behalf, to disclose information on United Kingdom exporters to any public and private body within or without the United Kingdom.

[Bill Esterson]

We recognise that it is essential to the efficient performance of the Department for International Trade and to the future delivery of trade policy that the Government have access to appropriate information about our imports and exports. We are also very aware of the impact on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, of any increased burden in administration and mandatory reporting.

Clause 7 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State may have access to such information, as collected by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, that would establish the number and identity of exporters. What exactly the information is that will be required is not disclosed and the clause does not limit HMRC in terms of what information may be sought, only setting out that the information may be used for

“the purpose of assisting the Secretary of State”

in his endeavour. HMRC could, in theory, use the power to request significant volumes of information that might be subsequently determined not to be needed for the purpose of assisting the Secretary of State, but that none the less requires disclosure under this provision.

This is not a trivial matter. Businesses and business organisations have expressed their concern about the provision, because much of this information is already collected by HMRC and businesses do not want to have to provide it more than once, because of the time that that would require and the impact it would have on their day-to-day operation.

That prompts the question of why powers must be awarded that would replicate that which is already being done. If existing legislation does not provide for the Secretary of State to access this data, one may very well understand the need to stipulate that such information may be shared with his Department. However, if such information exists already, the burden should not be put on businesses to furnish the same information in a different format, simply because of a failure to collate the information that is already in the possession of Government Departments or agencies.

That is why we tabled amendment 26, which would allow the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs to authorise their officers to disclose such information to the Secretary of State for the purposes described in the Bill, and amendment 29, which would prevent the potential creation of duplicate or conflicting regulations.

Amendment 29 recognises that section 10 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 contains provisions on the disclosure of exporter information by HMRC. SMEs are, after all, the backbone of our economy and we should encourage them to increase exports and not bog them down with tax forms and administration that may put some businesses off exporting.

Currently, much of the information is contained in the various documents and forms that must already be furnished to HMRC. For example, there is mandatory Intrastat reporting, which requires goods exporters to submit on a monthly basis details of goods and exports within the European Union, subject to minimum annual thresholds. Of course, that measure is enforceable by the European Union, but perhaps the Minister will confirm whether it will continue to be enforceable under the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I imagine a note will wing its way to him about that shortly. [Interruption.] He already knows—impressive. There is always a first time.

Similarly, VAT-registered exporters are required to supply HMRC with EC sales lists that detail their EU customers, the respective country codes and the value of goods supplied to them. On top of that, customs declarations must be made that record product codes, transport modes, duties levied and other relevant information for the purposes of accumulating information on the number and identity of exporters.

The much-trumpeted new customs declaration service will allegedly be operating by March 2019. Will the Government be incorporating this reporting requirement into it, or will additional systems be needed? In other words, how does the Minister intend to avoid duplication? HMRC has already acknowledged that there is a risk that the new customs declaration service is unlikely to be in place by exit day, so it will be phased in, which will result in limited functionality and scope when launched. That prompts the question about whether the new customs declaration service will be geared up in time for the reporting requirements of the Bill. Will the Government consider additional resources for HMRC to carry out additional duties for all these additional reporting requirements?

Our amendments recognise that where such information may not otherwise be available, regulations may be passed to require other persons to disclose it. However, the Government must clarify whom the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs may so instruct. The provision is extremely vague and potentially awards sweeping powers to HMRC to request information from persons entirely unconnected to an exporter or indeed trusted agents and advisers who might otherwise be bound by a duty of confidentiality.

Clearly, as some of our witnesses suggested, many existing reporting obligations are applicable to the export of goods rather than services. That gap needs to be addressed. Unlike goods exports, which have commodity codes for export purposes, there are not the same proper definitions and appropriate attributable codes for services, which means that it is difficult to determine when a service becomes an export. If the Minister does not have the full detail on that, I will not be entirely surprised, but perhaps it is something for his officials to persist with. The service exports to which these provisions will apply must be qualified, particularly as the definition of what constitutes a service may be vague. Many businesses have significant group operations and may provide services between subsidiaries, which would be treated as intra-group charges. Do the Government intend to inflate service export figures by including those details?

Amendments 27 and 28 are designed to prevent services that should not or would not be considered to be exports from being considered such by requiring that only exports with appropriate codes and identifiers can be considered for those purposes; that includes new codes where needed. However, we also recognise and welcome efforts by HMRC to tackle abusive transfer pricing and aggressive tax planning. Can the Minister tell us whether HMRC will use that information for such purposes in addition?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

It is good to see people thinking similarly. Sharing data quickly and immediately may be necessary for, as I say, the TRA dealing with a trade defence case, or where data is immediately required in a fast-moving future trade agreement negotiation.

Clause 7 sets out the powers needed for the Government to collect data to establish the number and identity of UK businesses exporting goods and services. Amendments 26, 27 and 28 would narrow the ability of the Government, both now and in the future, to determine what data we wish to collect and how we may collect it. The Government should retain the ability to determine in the future what relevant trade information they may need to request from businesses, although I stress that providing that information is voluntary. At this time, we are not able to anticipate precisely what those needs will be.

On some of the individual points, I think the hon. Member for Sefton Central claimed that HMRC is unrestricted in what data it can source. I stress that the power in the Bill is to request information. The Treasury will specify what information will be requested, and will do so by regulations that will come before Parliament. There is no obligation on businesses to provide that information, although we say, and strongly believe, that it is in their interests to do so, to help to inform the Government’s export policy.

On additional resources at HMRC, I rather feel that that might be a debate for another day in another place. However, the resources given to HMRC post Brexit to deal with Brexit are already there. Various announcements have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury over the last 18 months on that. I point out that the power has been assessed and its likely cost looked at. It has been deemed to be relatively inexpensive and overall will not add a cost burden on HMRC.

On inflating exporter numbers, I do not think that that would be accurate. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is some kind of Government plot to artificially boost the number of exporters, so that we can suddenly say what a great job we have done because the number has gone up. No—the purpose of collecting the data is to have an accurate picture of the number of exporters. For example, we know there are 5.7 million private sector businesses in the UK. HMRC collects export data from 1.9 million VAT-registered businesses. There are 2.2 million VAT-registered businesses in the UK. We therefore think that the Government do not collect any export data from about 4 million UK businesses. That is what we want to do. Our analysis suggests about 300,000 businesses in the UK could and should export but do not do so. The key is to find where those businesses are and encourage them to export, so that the UK does a much better job on exports.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether Intrastat will continue. When the UK leaves the EU, Intrastat will not be applicable for exports and will not continue in this case. Finally, there were questions relating to the interaction with the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Similar to my response to amendments 26 to 28, the Government should retain the ability to determine in the future what relevant trade information they may need to request from businesses. At this time, we are not able to anticipate that precisely, but I have given some indication of the sort of areas we might look at and what all those needs would be.

Amendment 29 refers to powers in section 10 of the 2015 Act. Those powers relate to disclosure of existing exporter information by HMRC officials and therefore are not directly relevant to the powers in clause 7 relating to the collection of data. In other words, it is different data. Bearing all of this in mind, I ask the hon. Members not to press their amendment.

[Bill Esterson]

I thank the Minister for his answers. I was puzzled by one thing. Why does the Bill not specify that the data would be for sharing with the Trade Remedies Authority if that is the primary purpose in collecting it at this point? He says there will be other organisations, but it is a bit odd that the Bill does not say as much.

Our concern—a concern that comes from business—is about giving HMRC the power to request. That is an interesting phrase. Anyone who has had any dealings with HMRC as a business tends to experience that as a fairly strong power to request. If we asked most people who run businesses, they would say it is a bit more than a power to request; they interpret it as not having any choice in the matter. That is one of our big concerns, and I hope the Minister will take that on board.

The Minister made the point that this is about the medium to long run and there will be improvements for smaller firms over that period. By implication, that leaves out the short term. I would welcome a brief intervention to confirm the implication I gathered from what he said—that there may be a hit or an increase in the demands and burdens on smaller firms while the new system is settling down. I will give way to him if that is what he thinks is going to happen.

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I do not accept that there will be an increase in the burdens for anybody involved in this process, because it is a voluntary and essentially very limited process. I would say to him that the data could be extremely helpful in informing Government policy, and that is why he should withdraw his amendment.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful for that clarification. We are keen to avoid unnecessary reporting requirements and an adverse impact, especially on smaller firms, as this country needs them to do well in trade and exports. We are supportive of the right approach and the right level of data collection in achieving such an objective. In that spirit, I will not press amendments 26 to 28. We will press amendment 29 to a vote because we still think it is important to avoid the duplication of powers in the 2015 Act. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 29, in clause 7, page 5, line 3, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not make provision that could be made by regulations under section 10 of the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.”—(Bill Esterson.)

This would avoid duplication, in respect of the collection of information from exporters, with the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

This would remove the Henry VIII power allowing for the modification of an Act of Parliament in respect of the collection of exporter information.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 31, in clause 7, page 5, line 10, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

“(6) Any statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

This would require Treasury regulations that make provision for exporters to supply information on their exports of goods or services to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

[Bill Esterson]

The amendments would remove yet more Henry VIII powers, this time bestowed on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and allowing for regulations to be made that may modify primary legislation. Using the powers, HMRC may change the nature of the information being sought under the regulations and the persons from whom such information may be requested, such that the resultant requirements on business may ultimately be substantially different from the scope implied under the clause. We are entirely opposed to the use of Henry VIII powers, as we have repeatedly said, and we do not believe it appropriate that any agent of Government has the powers to amend primary legislation by way of secondary legislation.

Amendment 31 would ensure that any regulation to which clause 7 applied must be subject to the affirmative procedure in this House, giving Parliament the proper opportunity to scrutinise any changes. There can be no good reason for allowing Henry VIII powers or the negative procedure to be used in those circumstances. I mentioned in my speech on the previous group of amendments the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 but it is worth drawing the Committee’s attention to section 10 of that Act, in particular subsection (6), where such regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. Logic and consistency might suggest that that would be appropriate in this Bill too. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that was appropriate in the 2015 Act but is not in this one, despite the similar circumstances. In advance of the 2015 Act, HMRC published an explanatory memorandum on the use of the powers, noting that such information could well be sensitive and thus recognising a need to limit the scope of the information collected and subsequently shared:

“This is deliberately tightly drawn and specifies the categories of information that may be disclosed under the regulations, and is limited to less sensitive but nonetheless useful information.”

That brings us to amendment 32, which would remove HMRC’s power to share the information freely with other bodies or institutions, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas. We recognise the need to accumulate comprehensive statistics. We are mindful of the evidence from our witnesses, Professor Alan Winters of the UK Trade Policy Observatory and Anastassia Beliakova of the British Chambers of Commerce, both of whom called for the greater sharing of information. However, that is not the same as calling for the sharing of commercially sensitive information. In the light of HMRC’s explanatory memorandum to the 2015 Act, such sharing must be subject to limitations to prevent sensitive information from being shared freely.

[The Chair]

Order. We debated amendment 32 under the previous group of amendments and are now debating amendments 30 and 31. The hon. Gentleman needs to confine himself to comments on those amendments. I hope that is helpful.

[Bill Esterson]

Thank you for bringing me back on track, Ms Ryan.

I trust that the Committee recognises the impact that poor application of those powers might have on businesses. It may even result in entirely opposite outcomes to those intended. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to such concerns. I hope that he will address my questions about how some of the powers will be exercised and what measures will be put in place to protect our exporters.

[Greg Hands]

The clause sets out the powers that will enable the Government to establish for the first time ever the number and identity of UK businesses exporting goods and services. HMRC currently collects export data from approximately 70% of the 2.2 million businesses that are registered for VAT. As I said earlier, there are 5.7 million private sector businesses in the UK. That means we do not collect export data from about 4 million businesses. Our data does not include certain sectors, smaller enterprises and many exporters of services.

Why is it important that the Government have a more comprehensive understanding of UK exporters? First, the information will allow the Trade Remedies Authority to fulfil its function using full and proper data on the UK business population. Secondly, it will equip my Department with robust data to develop trade plans globally and will help us better to understand the impact of future trade agreements and policies in order to direct our resources appropriately. Ultimately, it will all provide better value for money for the taxpayer by enabling more targeted approaches to Government intervention and support for existing and potential exporters.

We are not able to anticipate all the data that we might need in future, including for those functions that I have just described to the hon. Gentleman. It is therefore vital that we retain the ability to specify the type of information to collect now and in the future to ensure that the Government are able to discharge fully all relevant trade functions.

Should amendment 30 be passed, it would not be possible to collect trade data through the tax return. We do not know whether the collection of such currently unknown data might, for example, require the modification of an Act of Parliament. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that at such time as the Government specify what information we wish to collect and how we will collect it, we will return to this House, as is already set out in clause 7(5). I also assure him that any information collected and the way we request it will be done in such a way as to cause minimal cost to Government and business. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Bill Esterson]

I wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Trade Bill (Fourth sitting)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Hannah Bardell]

And the point of the amendments is that in relation to goods coming from whichever part of the UK, we do not create a democratic deficit. That is what the Bill creates. The amendment rectifies that.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I am proud of the Labour Government’s role in delivering devolution to Scotland and Wales, and I appreciate the hon. Lady mentioning that role. Can she set out when she sees there is a need for the consent of the devolved Administrations and when there is a need to consult them? Perhaps she could give some examples to demonstrate the difference.

[Hannah Bardell]

To be honest, the point is that we have the powers and we can have that discussion on an issue-by-issue basis. We have many examples of where we have worked well with the UK Government on trade and on rights, but we can consider other things—workers’ rights, for example. I know that when the Bill that became the Trade Union Act 2016 came to Parliament, many Members in the hon. Gentleman’s party and in other parties had huge problems with it, and it was hotly debated and discussed. Unfortunately, what we have seen is a rolling-back, despite the fact that there was opposition.

If we turn that on its head and say, “Could there be vetoes from other parts of the UK?” or, “Could we be in a position where one country is blocking a trade deal on a particular product over another within the United Kingdom?”, I would like to think that people will not use those powers in the way that the UK Government have often used their powers to impose legislation on devolved nations against their will. The whole point is that the rights, protections and opportunities, the access to and membership of the single market and the customs union are so vital to Wales, Scotland and the rest of the UK that we must not row back on those things and not give the devolved nations the opportunity to consent and be consulted. We could pick any particular issue and we could all have a discussion about whether there should be consent or consultation. The point is that we have the powers and they are powers for a purpose, and we should not have powers taken away.

Amendment 36 would amend schedule 1, which provides that Scottish and Welsh Ministers have

“No power to modify retained direct EU legislation etc.”,

such as EU regulations, or to make regulations that would create inconsistencies with any modifications to retained law that the UK Government have made, even in devolved areas. However, those restrictions are not being placed on UK Ministers. We believe that, as a matter of principle, devolved Ministers should have the same power in respect of matters falling within devolved competence as UK Ministers are being given. That is not is an unreasonable request. We are in a Union and we have devolved powers and devolved Governments; Ministers in each of those countries should have the same power as any UK Minister. Amendment 36 would remove the restrictions placed on the Scottish and Welsh Ministers’ ability to amend directly applicable EU law incorporated into UK law, bringing the powers into line with those being given to UK Ministers.

Amendment 37 would replace requirements imposed on Scottish and Welsh Ministers to seek UK Ministers’ consent when

“acting alone under section 1(1) or 2(1)”

with a requirement to consult UK Ministers before making those provisions. We have heard from stakeholders on this matter. I am sorry I was not here at the earlier evidence sessions; I was at the Council of Europe, but I have watched and read the contributions that were made. As we know, stakeholders were invited to give evidence and discuss their concerns. Chris Southworth from the International Chamber of Commerce UK said,

“Overall...I would be concerned if I were in the devolved Administrations. There is specifically no opportunity for the devolved Administrations—or the regions, I have to say—to feed into decisions on trade. I would be very concerned about that, particularly in the devolved Administrations, where there are vulnerabilities on a whole range of different industries.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 35, Q80.]

That is not SNP Members or Members of other parties just making political points; it is what we have heard in the Committee.

Today, we heard Elspeth Macdonald from Food Standards Scotland say that one of the reasons her organisation is supporting the Scottish Government on withholding a legislative consent motion is that it feels there could be a lowering of food and drink standards. Given that Scotland’s food and drink industry has grown at twice the rate of that of the rest of the UK and is a leading light of our exports, that is something.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she asks about signing up to the GPA and the schedules to the GPA. I might add that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Brent North said, the UK’s joining the GPA will actually be subject to a separate process in Parliament. There might be a question about which authority within these islands has a right to administer a particular part of the GPA. For example, the relevant Scottish body might be the right body in Scotland, the relevant UK body in England, the relevant Welsh body in Wales, and so on.

The approach I described is essential for providing continuity to UK businesses, workers and consumers. As set out in our recent trade White Paper—this is the nub of the argument—we will not normally use these powers to amend legislation in devolved areas without the consent of the relevant devolved Administration, and we will certainly never do so without first consulting them. It is crucial to understand that.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State made the point that there is nothing in the Bill about a formal consultation. Does the Minister accept that point, and does he accept the need for such a formal process in the Bill?

[Greg Hands]

It is crucial to draw out what we are talking about. This is about transitioning existing agreements that are already in effect right across the United Kingdom. As I have already laid out, the Secretary of State and I have met the devolved Administrations in different capacities and in different ways. Our officials have certainly exchanged a lot of views on that.

I will come on to where we are with future trade agreements in a moment. Our intention is to involve fully devolved Administrations, devolved Parliaments and so on in that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

On Second Reading, the Minister acknowledged that there may well be changes to those existing agreements. In the case of Norway and Turkey, can he confirm that that would almost certainly have to happen? Otherwise, they would cross the Government’s red lines. What consultation does he anticipate in those situations?

[Greg Hands]

As you know, Mr Davies, perhaps better than anyone, it certainly it is not for me to suggest what may or may not happen as part of the ongoing negotiations with the European Union. Clearly, aspects of the European economic area agreement will be dependent on those. It is our intention for there to be no substantive changes in those agreements as we go forward and transition. It is very important to understand that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

The Government have been clear that we do not seek to renegotiate existing trade agreements. In leaving the EU, we seek to maintain continuity in our existing trade and investment relationships. As such, we seek no change in the effects of our existing agreements as we leave the European Union. Therefore, special review procedures, as proposed in new clause 8, for example, are unnecessary.

The powers in the Bill will be used only to transition the existing trade agreements that the EU has signed up to prior to exit day. The Bill does not relate to the negotiation, signature or implementation of future free trade agreements. We have taken that approach for a specific reason: we want Parliament to play a vital role in the scrutiny of future trade agreements, as it always has done. In the trade White Paper, we made it clear that our future trade policy must be transparent and inclusive, and that Parliament will be engaged throughout the process. We will continue to respect the role of Parliament when agreeing the terms of future trade agreements.

[Bill Esterson]

Is the Minister giving us an undertaking that there will be an affirmative or super-affirmative scrutiny process in Parliament on the new trade agreements?

[Greg Hands]

All that will be considered in due course. We will bring forward proposals in the coming months on how Parliament will interact with future trade agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

Again, I stress that Parliament has the right to vote on the implementation, but we also must remember that these will be agreements that are substantively the same as the current agreements. The reason I intervened on the hon. Gentleman—when I think he confirmed he was quite content with the existing EU scrutiny procedures—is that of course all of those agreements have been through the existing EU scrutiny procedures. I was not necessarily with him in the Chamber or upstairs each time one of those EU trade agreements went through, I think he was satisfied with those procedures at the time.

[Bill Esterson]

Is the Minister categorically saying that there will be no changes to the agreements that we are describing as corresponding agreements before they come through?

[Greg Hands]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the evidence of the International Trade Committee, if that is in order. We had a good round about this at the Select Committee yesterday—some of the members of the Select Committee are here or are at least members of the Bill Committee—and we are quite clear that 70-plus partners have been engaged in this process. All 70-plus have agreed in principle; none has raised objections in principle to doing this. There is no reason that they necessarily would want to change the substance. They need continuity in their trading arrangements in the same way that we do.

The hon. Member for Brent North claimed that a wide range of stakeholders provided oral evidence calling for greater scrutiny mechanisms for future approved trade agreements. I think that was a fair comment. There were a number of views on how our future scrutiny arrangements might be, but I think the evidence session showed just how varied and complex the views on this matter are. It is right that we take the time to think through our options carefully. Let us not rush ahead and put in place arrangements that may not be fit for purpose. That is why we will be returning to future trade agreements in the future.

We will return to Parliament with proposals on future free trade agreements, on which we will seek views in due course. Accepting these amendments and new clauses would frustrate our ability to fully consider all of the issues and options in the round. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Brent North to withdraw the amendment.