Draft Trade Barriers (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Bill Esterson and Hannah Bardell

Tuesday 27th November 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.

What is the objective of the trade barrier system that we should have? Surely it must be to ensure that we have a robust system in place to support our businesses and workers as necessary and as they might expect. Given the new world order in which might is right, where protections and tariffs are rife and we verge on the prospect of very dangerous trade wars, it must be appropriate for UK businesses to expect the absolute best from their Government. What, therefore, have we been presented with?

At present, we are part of the European Commission trade barriers scheme, which operates as a statutory system. Businesses, trade associations and states may complain to the European Commission if they find evidence of a trade barrier in a non-EU state, as is currently the case with United States tariffs. After leaving the European Union, we will not be part of the TBR scheme—that much has been made clear by the Minister—and it will be replaced by a non-statutory system.

I am surprised that the Government did not automatically debate the issue in a Delegated Legislation Committee. Instead, it took the sifting committee to challenge the Government’s decision, and I am glad that it did so. When the Minister said that the system is drawn-out and complex, he rather let the cat out of the bag about how important it is for us to get it right and for Members of Parliament to be able to debate and scrutinise what is happening.

The sifting committee said that the House might wish to explore further with the Minister the Department’s plan for the new non-statutory reporting mechanism. Opposition Members certainly want to do so. As the explanatory memorandum notes, it is correct to say that other avenues are used for complaints to the Commission about trade barriers, but more trade barriers are being created in the new world order. In 2017, 70 new barriers affected EU businesses, and that number appears to be growing. It is true that of those 70 new barriers, only one was reported to the Commission, and the Government think that that proves that there is no need for a statutory system. The Government plan to replace the current system, but what is it about the new scheme that gives the Minister confidence that it will deliver what business needs?

If we examine the examples, we start to see a bit of a pattern. The Confederation of European Paper Industries lodged a complaint that measures imposed by Turkey on the imports of certain varieties of paper were inconsistent with both the WTO and the EU-Turkey customs arrangement rules. Turkey immediately withdrew the unfair measures because the possibility of action through the statutory system was enough. How does the Minister know that his new system will be as effective as the current one, without the back-up of either the Commission itself and the system it operates or a similar UK version? Previously, the threat of the procedure being used has been sufficient, as the paper industry example demonstrates. Did the Government consider that the reason the procedure is so rarely used is precisely that the threat alone is sufficient? Did the Minister consider that soft power is, in fact, extremely effective? Are the Government missing the point that the current system works very well indeed?

I also understand that a number of industry groups involving both UK businesses and those from the rest of the EU, including in ceramics, are at different levels of raising complaints through the existing trade barriers mechanism, so I put it to the Minister that the existing system is used more than might appear at first glance and, perhaps, more than he indicated in his opening remarks. Perhaps the Minister could advise those currently engaged in actions using the existing system as to whether they should continue their complaints using that system or switch to the UK’s new procedure.

The explanatory memorandum claims that there will be no impact on UK businesses. That seems unlikely, given that some may be involved in existing complaints and that others, including through relationships with other EU businesses, are likely to be in the future. I suggest that the Minister should confirm that the change in procedure will have an impact on UK businesses.

The Department has said that feedback on the effectiveness of the trade barriers regulatory system has been mixed? What does “mixed” mean? What was said in the informal consultation, and should there not be a more detailed consultation on the system that will be adopted? If the Minister wants to intervene to explain the rather quizzical look on his face, I will be delighted to give way. He is choosing not to. What is his plan is for the new system? Will it involve the Trade Remedies Authority? How might that work? If the Trade Remedies Authority is to be involved, does that mean that the Trade Bill is to reappear and conclude its remaining stages? It seems to have disappeared mysteriously into the ether.

The hon. Member for Livingston made the point about the nations and regions. We have debated that at length, and the lack of engagement with and involvement of the nations and regions was one of a number of our concerns about the Trade Remedies Authority. The hon. Lady made a good point about that and it applies in this case, too.

[Hannah Bardell]

I know there is support among Opposition Members for having officers for trade remedies, as we discussed in relation to the Trade Bill. Perhaps we could consider that alongside the issues under discussion. I hope we can work together to pursue that.

[Bill Esterson]

I certainly agree that the need for regional engagement and for the nations of the UK to be involved in addressing trade barriers is incredibly important—as it is for large and small individual businesses across the country.

What will the procedure be during the proposed transition period set out in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, in the unlikely event of the Prime Minister’s deal surviving? What will happen if, as seems inevitable, the deal is defeated? If, God forbid, there is no deal, what will happen then?

Paragraph 2.3 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“In the EU, the vast majority of trade barriers are raised via the Market Access Advisory Committee”.

Does the Minister propose to replace that committee, which is a non-statutory part of the current arrangements?

To move on to the Minister’s points about the digital service, there are great concerns among smaller firms, and the organisations that represent them, about the Government’s moving to the use of digital systems in a number of places in government. How will the use of the digital route ensure that smaller firms are not disadvantaged? That is of great concern to many small businesses. Should not the arrangement have been sorted out before the revocation of the existing legislation? I note that the Minister said it would be in place by the end of March. Will he confirm whether that digital system has been tested, whether there is awareness of it, particularly among smaller firms, and how he envisages greater access to and use of it by the smaller firms that might be interested in using it at some time in the future, if not today? That is a wider issue, but it is directly relevant.

Paragraph 10.5 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“Stakeholders from across sectors advocated a forum akin to the EU’s Market Access Advisory Committee in which industry associations and government departments can discuss avenues for resolution before initiating enforcement mechanisms.”

That relates to my earlier question, and I want to ask the Minister why it has not been developed yet—or has progress been made towards achieving such a mechanism?

The trade barrier regulation is only one area of the EU legislation that deals with dumping. The SI before the Committee is part of the process of revoking the EU legislation. What is happening to other pieces of EU legislation that deal with dumping? Specifically, what will happen to EU regulation 2016/1036 on protection against dumped imports, and EU regulation 2016/1037 on protection against subsidised imports?

To return to my main points, we have a system—the Minister made the point that there has been a decline in its use over 25 years—in which trade barriers have been addressed through our membership of the EU. It appears that there has not been an evidence-based approach to considering how effective that system has been, and whether something similar would work. May I suggest to the Minister that, rather than revoking the regulation, it might have been a good idea to make a greater effort to investigate whether the current system was effective and whether the fact that its statutory element was not used very often was a sign that it was working successfully, rather than the opposite? I need to hear from him how the alternatives that he proposes will deliver the same level of protection for UK businesses that we have seen under the current system.

Draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Economic Partnership Agreements and Trade Agreement) (Eastern and Southern Africa States, Southern African Development Community States, Ghana and Ecuador) Order 2018

Debate between Bill Esterson and Hannah Bardell

Wednesday 31st October 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.

The four agreements that we are discussing will form the basis for future UK deals with the countries covered by the four agreements. The Trade Bill, which is still going through the Lords, prevents us from discussing the contents of the agreements after today’s debate. Having further parliamentary scrutiny, including of any amendments, once those agreements are rolled over or renegotiated—whichever happens after we leave the European Union—will be entirely for the Secretary of State to decide, so we need to take advantage of today’s proceedings and challenge the Government, because there will not be another opportunity.

Reports suggest that the three economic partnership agreements that we are discussing were agreed under significant pressure. It is therefore highly likely—notwithstanding what the Minister said when he quoted one of his counterparts saying that they are ready to roll the agreements over—that there may be a desire to renegotiate. South Africa’s deputy Trade and Industry Minister when the agreements were signed, Dr Rob Davies, said that they were signed “under duress”, at the risk of having tariff-free access to the EU withdrawn. For those reasons, it seems highly likely that these partners will try to renegotiate, so today’s debate is extremely important.

The statutory instrument relates to four multi-country trade agreements, as the Minister said, which we are party to as a result of being members of the EU. There is one free trade agreement and three EPAs, which relate to trade with developing countries. The objective of the agreements is to increase trade and investment opportunities. The explanatory memorandum lists the advantages of developing nation partners as

“providing duty and quota-free access for exports to the EU; more integrated regional markets; more flexible, simpler rules of origin; no undue competition and a context of wider reforms and helping to address broader trade issues such as technical barriers to trade and labour rights.”

Could the Minister let us know what is meant by technical barriers to trade and labour rights? I could not find any further detail on that point. The explanatory memorandum then moves on to the benefits to

“consumers and workers in Europe by the removal of trade barriers, the promotion of exports from developing countries resulting in wider choice, lower prices, better value and wider ethical choice options.”

The benefits to UK businesses are listed in the impact section of the explanatory memorandum. The estimated increase to UK GDP of £24 million as a result of Ecuador’s accession to the EU-Andean EPA is given as an example of the opportunities presented by removing barriers to trade. The Ecuador protocol of accession includes a chapter on public procurement, and the explanatory memorandum suggests that there may be an impact on UK public services as a result. Can the Minister tell us what that impact is likely to be?

The impact assessment of Ecuador’s accession refers to the relationship between trade openness and economic growth. It then quotes the fall in the poverty rate since China opened up its economy as a “striking example”. China may well be a striking example, but it is also strikingly different from Ghana, Ecuador and the Eastern and Southern Africa states, and the Southern African development community states. They do not have the opportunity of modernising their industries by keeping their borders closed, as happened in China, nor do they have the economic power of China.

The impact assessments each make the point that trade is beneficial. Indeed, paragraph 1.3 of the Ecuador impact assessment states:

“Free and fair trade is fundamental to the prosperity of the EU, the UK and the world economy.”

The key point is that it needs to be fair, not just free.

The impact assessments also demonstrate the benefits of free trade agreements. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East said, we are of course a member of a free trade agreement, in a market with 500 million consumers—the European Union. It covers 60% of our trade, either directly with the other 27 countries of the EU, or indirectly through agreements that the EU has with other countries, including those we are discussing today. The EPAs under discussion have already been provisionally applied, of course.

The Ecuador impact assessment says:

“the evidence suggests that FTAs enhance trade flows”,

as our membership of the EU has proved. Significantly, the Ghana impact assessment admits:

“There is very little quantitative evidence on the impact of EPAs.”

We support the objectives of supporting trade with the developing nations, boosting their economies and prosperities, and doing so while boosting our own economy, but we must explore whether these agreements will deliver the proposed objectives. It is telling that the Government acknowledge in paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory notes that there had been criticism of the agreements, but that reference is all they have to say about the criticism. There is the slight exception in that three of the four impact assessments contain an index that refers to section 8—“Sensitivity analysis & risks”. Curiously, in each of the three impact assessments that list section 8 in the index, after section 7, “Impact Tests”, the next items are annex A and annex B—“estimated one-off costs” and “most-traded product lines”—followed by a blank page. There is no content for the “Sensitivity analysis & risks” sections in any of them. The fourth, by the way, does not have a section 8.

Will the Minister explain those omissions and tell us what was meant to be in those section 8s? Failing that—or perhaps in addition—will he tell us what the criticisms of the agreements, which are referred to in the explanatory notes, are? I am afraid I was unable to find any reference to them anywhere in what the Government have written.

To give the Minister time to find answers to those questions, I thought it would be sensible to go through some of the concerns that have been raised. Perhaps he might want to say something about that when he responds. Concerns have been raised about the impact on developing nations and about the regional impact of economic partnership agreements. A common criticism is that “most favoured nation” clauses restrict the ability of developing nations to reach trade agreements with their neighbours, as the same benefits, or better, in such agreements have to go to the EU. Instead of opening up trade for developing nations, the concern is that economic partnership agreements risk restricting trade.

I said earlier that the Government admitted in the impact assessments that there is a lack of quantitative evidence about the benefits. The longest-running economic partnership agreement is in the Caribbean. It started in 2008, but according to the European Commission’s impact assessment from 2014, there has been minimal domestic growth in the Caribbean since the EPA was implemented.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the uncompetitive nature of poultry farming in Ghana has left Ghanaian producers unable to deal with the lower cost of imported food following trade liberalisation. Those are the IMF’s words, not mine. The IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office report on international trade policy from 2009 says that the poultry sector in Ghana was much more vulnerable to competition from imports than IMF staff believed. The IMF forced the Ghanaian Government to reverse the Ghanaian parliamentary decision to raise tariffs to protect the poultry industry, with disastrous consequences for poultry farming in Ghana and for the communities that depended on that farming and its economic benefits.

The experience in a number of African countries has been of moving from self-sufficiency, or near self-sufficiency, in food to reliance on imports. Economies have moved from domestic production of food to foreign-owned production of cash crops such as cocoa, coffee, peanuts, sugar, cotton, rubber, palm oil and tobacco. They have moved away from the production of food and towards a reliance on imports of food.

Let us look at the experience of countries such as Tanzania, where the EU already has an agreement. Fish prices have gone up to such an extent that locals are unable to afford fish that has been caught in Lake Victoria; such fish are now almost exclusively caught for export. Some 49% of fish from Tanzania goes to the EU, and most of the rest is exported elsewhere. Locals have to rely on so-called fish skeletons—the remnants from fish that are caught in the Nile or in the lake and exported. The experience in east Africa is of produce being exported to the EU, driving up prices and undermining food security. In this case, the suggestion is that far from helping trade from developing nations, the east Africa economic partnership agreement has restricted it and made industrialisation and growth harder to achieve. The case of Tanzania and the east Africa EPA is a cautionary tale of what can happen if these agreements are not applied with care.

As we leave the EU, we will, as a result of our EU membership, be party to 70 or so trade agreements that we will need to renegotiate. The four agreements covered by this statutory instrument will need to be agreed again. The Trade Bill, which is slowly making its way through the Lords, makes provision for what the Government call the roll-over of these agreements, but the roll-over depends on whether the third-party countries to the agreements want to sign the same agreement or take the opportunity to revisit it. Given the concerns that I voiced at the start of my remarks, we should not be surprised if that happens with some or all of the agreement we are considering.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that significant concerns have been raised by the devolved nations, particularly Scotland, about the lack of transparency, consent and consultation on trade agreements. I have no doubt that the Government will have to face up to and think about that carefully.

Trade Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Hannah Bardell

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.

Trade Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Hannah Bardell

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Trade Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Hannah Bardell

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.

Trade Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Hannah Bardell

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

Q But what if one of the consequences of the negotiations to produce corresponding agreements was additional quotas that increased imports in your sector? Do you have a view on that?

Gary Stephenson: That is probably more in the food manufacturers’ area, because how the tariff rate quota is divided up is obviously for negotiation between the UK and the EU. I know that the World Trade Organisation has some influence on how it is divided up. This is where the specific industry sector should be consulted on what it believes would be the fair quota. Any of us is probably not in a position to set out a position on any specific quota. Take lamb as an example: what is a suitable quota that the UK would take back from the EU? It is a complex area, and I think it is best to ask that question of the sector responsible.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Q Happy Burns day to everyone, and I thank the witnesses for joining us today. Following on with the issue of cost, the meat sector is potentially looking at WTO tariffs on meat processors at 60%. If that is coupled with HMRC saying that 130,000 companies have never filled out a customs declaration, what impact, from a food and drink and meat processing perspective, do you think there will be on the sector, broadly and in terms of bureaucracy and staffing? Do you feel that adequate investigation and consultation has taken place?

Gary Stephenson: Wow, that is a big one. There are a number of elements to this. My company is in a fairly unique position in the food industry, in that we already import product into the EU, so we understand the complexities of that process. It is about whether the region you are from is authorised on the EU legislation side. Is your business registered within the EU as a registered business to produce that product? Other countries have similar issues. The US has similar legislation, which requires overseas suppliers to be registered with the Food and Drug Administration.

There is an additional piece: the export health certificates, which are not needed for the EU at present, but will be. Each one of those costs the business. It is not just the cost of the certificates—the vet must come to inspect. Have we got enough vets in the UK to provide that service? That is an additional challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Q Again, when you are talking about trade deals, remember that the Bill is about the creation of corresponding deals. You are applying what you say to the provisions of the Bill as much as anything else.

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Yes.

David Scott: Can I echo that? I think uncertainty is a killer at this point, specifically for my customers, whom I trade with on a global basis. They have a global supply chain and have to make contingency plans to ensure that whatever medicines they make are available to patients. Those contingency plans cannot wait until the eleventh hour or the last minute of any negotiations of any sort. I can tell you that they are starting to put those contingency plans in place now, and that they will have a massive effect on companies such as mine, and companies across the UK that support pharmaceutical R&D and the development and release of products on to the European market.

[Hannah Bardell]

Q Thank you for attending, and happy Burns day.

Perhaps I can start with you, David, and pick up on what has been said about confusion. The way I read your comments was that you were talking about concerns about legislative change under the Bill, and the ability to make changes in primary legislation. As we know, the Law Society of Scotland has raised issues concerning the timescale that that might mean for your organisation and sector. Could you talk about that a bit? Also, I notice from your photograph that you are MHRA and Food and Drug Administration approved. On the impact of leaving, and potential disjoint—we have already lost the European Medicines Agency to Amsterdam—can you talk about the impact on your sector and company?

David Scott: Yes, the potential impact is massive. The whole of the medicines regulation is about harmonisation and working under one single set of standards, which are beneficial and mean that the speed to market of life-saving medicines is reduced. If we try to come up with a different set of regulations or way of working, and have duplication of effort, which is what would happen under the current proposal if we became a third country outside the EEA, pharma will look at us and think, “Is the market big enough?”

We are now a net exporter of pharmaceuticals into the European Union and have a trade surplus. We want to avoid anything that puts us into a deficit. If we cannot get some harmonisation and cannot stick with the current harmonisation, I am concerned that we will lose our reputation—or not our reputation, because the MHRA is one of the best in the world, as far as I am concerned, but the ability to get joined-up connectedness. That would have a massive impact on my industry and my company, without question. I would then be forced, contingency-wise, to say “What do I do? I can’t serve some of my customers’ needs in a different regulatory system.” It is a massive thing for us.

Foreign Direct Investment 2016-17

Debate between Bill Esterson and Hannah Bardell

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that point. Japanese firms have already invested here, as have other foreign firms. They need to do everything they can to maximise their existing investments and to be in a position where it makes sense for them to build on those investments. That comes back to what the Minister has to say and what the Department has to do to enhance our position so that those investments continue to deliver and attract additional investment.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Gentleman is making a detailed and informed speech. To counter the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Mitsubishi, which is a major employer in my constituency, has significant concerns about its ability to continue to invest and grow in Livingston and across the country, due to issues such as market access and the continued employment of EU nationals. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that companies such as Mitsubishi should be able to continue trading in Scotland and across the UK?

[Bill Esterson]

Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for showing that there is a balance between two viewpoints: our foreign investors’ desire to continue their investments, make the most of them and build on them is set against their very real concerns. I am glad that she touched on the challenges with respect to skilled workers’ ability to come here and stay here, given that we have such serious skills shortages.

Nissan’s car plant in Sunderland employs 6,100 staff and an estimated 24,000 additional jobs are linked to it through the domestic supply chain. That fact and the hon. Lady’s point about Mitsubishi demonstrate just how important Japanese investment is for our car industry. The previous Labour Government helped to establish the Automotive Council UK, which turned around the struggling UK car sector and has contributed so much to making it a success story. Labour intervened to boost that vital industry—the 2009 car scrappage scheme played a key part in increasing demand for new cars. In contrast, the Government’s current inaction is a serious threat to the industry’s ability to compete.

The threat to UK car industry jobs is very real, and is compounded by the recent sale of Vauxhall to PSA Group, with the possibility of job losses as a consequence of any restructuring of UK operations. The Prime Minister is alleged to have told PSA that her Government are committed to the UK car industry, but the investment figures show a very worrying picture and serious concern on the part of investors. Figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders quoted in the Financial Times suggest that investment in the UK car industry fell to just £322 million in the first half of 2017, compared with last year’s £1.66 billion.

The Secretary of State has repeatedly referenced the UK’s service sector in his various speeches and appearances before the House, but the Government have been largely silent on how they intend to ensure the future strength of this sector, which is vital to our economic success. The passporting regime is critical to the ongoing ability of UK-based banks to engage with EU-based customers, and it has been essential to decisions by US and Swiss banks to use London as a centre of operations, but uncertainty about its future continues; as a result, decisions are being taken to relocate to the continent.

The Government have finally decided to produce a trade White Paper in advance of the upcoming trade Bill. The fact that they have taken more than a year to do so may well have had a significant impact on investment appetite—often, decisions are made years in advance of committing capital to investment projects—and the trade White Paper must address the critical issues faced by domestic and foreign investors alike. Investors need to know what the Government will do to encourage investment across the United Kingdom, including the devolved Administrations and regions; whether the Government intend to prioritise support for certain industry sectors in preference to others; to what extent those industries will be able to continue to operate within global and, in particular, intra-EU supply chains, and what impact the rules of origin regulations will have on their capacity to continue to participate therein. Furthermore, what trade defence mechanisms do the Government intend to introduce and how will they use trade remedies to address any unfair practices undertaken by foreign competitors? What efforts will the Government make to ensure that standards are maintained in order to prevent unfair market distortion as a result of imports from markets with less stringent regulations and standards? What efforts will the Government make to maintain regulatory equivalence with key markets? What investment dispute settlement mechanisms does the UK intend to pursue in future trade agreements?

Labour has been clear about what our trade priorities will be and how we will seek to ensure that all of Britain benefits. We have addressed that in our manifesto. We recognise that the UK’s ability to continue to be a premier destination for FDI is essential to our future prosperity and to creating the jobs and economic growth we need. Now the Government need to minimise uncertainty and set out how they will reassure and support investors and deliver an attractive strategy that encourages foreign investors to continue to come here and to invest more.

Many investors come here precisely because of our access to the EU. The Government need to set out how they will maintain that access in financial and professional services, in manufacturing and across the economy. Time is fast running out. Investors are worried—remember those SMMT figures for the car industry and the actions of Japanese banks. Those are not isolated examples. Businesses want to know how their investments will be supported and enhanced; they need to know that trade policy is linked to an industrial strategy. Piecemeal deals for one business at a time are not an industrial strategy, however much they are welcome to the businesses, workers and communities in which such businesses are located. The future of FDI is vital to our national interest. The Government must intervene now.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between Bill Esterson and Hannah Bardell

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

I am going to make some more progress before I take any more interventions.

The larger retailers that open longer will have to find a way to reduce costs, which means removing the premium for shop workers. Given that the major retailers operate UK-wide, a change in pay and conditions in England and Wales will mean changes in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well. Premium pay on Sundays is viable across the UK because large retailers in most of the UK are restricted to six hours’ opening. The time and a half paid to many shop workers will be under threat to make up for staying open longer across the UK, which, of course, is why this is a UK-wide matter and why it is entirely appropriate that Members from across the UK have a vote on this very important proposal.

Removing time and a half would cost shop staff who work an average shift in Scotland £1,400 a year, which in anybody’s money is a very significant hit, particularly for those on low pay in the retail sector. The proposed changes in England in Wales would have a profound effect on workers in Scotland, and I am glad that the SNP recognises that Scottish workers will be hit. I was a bit surprised when the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) told us in Committee that, while her concerns focused on Scottish workers, the SNP welcomed the additional employee protections in the Bill, which she ascribed to

“the strong and principled action of the SNP”.––[Official Report, Enterprise Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2016; c. 322.]

We will come to how those protections will not do what the Government claim they will, but I am glad that the letter from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Scottish Labour, Kezia Dugdale, has had the desired effect. I welcome the SNP’s confirmation that its Members will vote against the Government, and I look forward to them joining us in the Lobby.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I don’t have a choice, do I?

[Hannah Bardell]

On a point of clarity, the hon. Gentleman can read the record for himself, as can members of the public and Members of this House, but we have been very clear. We engaged with all sides of the argument up until the point where we took a decision at our group meeting as part of a democratic process.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. All I will say is that I am glad that she and her colleagues came to the right decision in the end; it does not matter how they got there.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Hannah Bardell

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

That is an excellent point. Like my hon. Friend, I find myself performing some of the roles and responsibilities set out for the small business commissioner on behalf of my constituents. Having been owner of a small business, I have sometimes been able to point them in the right direction. We would expect the small business commissioner to be in a position to give advice, support and encouragement. Later amendments will look at how that might be achieved if that office is to be given additional responsibilities.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Does the hon. Gentleman share our concern? We are aware that the Government have targets for prompt payment but, as some Governments do, they have occasion to miss those targets. If the commissioner does not have the power in that jurisdiction, he or she cannot bring the Government and other larger organisations into line.

[Bill Esterson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, with which I agree. We will deal with that point in more detail in the next set of amendments, although it does have an impact on the appointment and dismissal process, as she rightly points out.

We want the commissioner to be effective. We want him or her to be able to help with late payments and to look at what other functions might make good additions as the office evolves, and that includes the point made by the hon. Lady.

The Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce often offer good advice, legal services and access to discounted business products such as insurance, and they are also good at helping businesses with disputes, but they are member organisations. Not every small business has a lawyer or accountant who is able to offer the full range of services. Many small businesses will need the office of the commissioner—just as an advice service was available under the previous Labour Government for businesses that had nowhere else to go—to provide advice, support, encouragement and dispute resolution directly, rather than just signposting elsewhere.

If the Minister expects the small business commissioner to signpost to those excellent organisations, she will need to ensure they can cope, because they might face a deluge of additional work. They have raised that concern with me, and no doubt also with the Minister. She will need to ensure that every business that approaches the small business commissioner wants to go to a membership organisation, where, of course, they will have to pay a fee—because I suspect that the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce will continue to charge for their services, as will solicitors, accountants and other professionals, if that is what the intention is when it comes to signposting. The small business commissioner will therefore also need to be in a position to develop his or her own capacity to help with disputes, whether related to late payment or not, to consider developing an advice and support function, and to look at areas such as procurement in the supply chain.

The ability to explore the options as the office develops will be restricted if the small business commissioner is, in reality, restricted by his or her relationship with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. We want the small business commissioner to have the chance to be as effective as possible, and an important part of developing that effectiveness will be the way in which the small business commissioner is set up and his ability to operate as independently as possible. Otherwise, the question will remain whether the small business commissioner has the teeth to deliver for business and do the job of enabling enterprise to flourish.

The amendments to make the small business commissioner a Crown appointment are based on the legislation that set up the office of the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner is a public body, sponsored by a Department—the Ministry of Justice. In the case of the small business commissioner, we propose that BIS would sponsor the small business commissioner, so that he would not simply be part of the Department, answerable only to the Secretary of State. The Information Commissioner reports directly to Parliament. The office cannot be abolished by the Secretary of State; the individual office holder cannot be removed by the Secretary of State. The office’s decisions are supervised by the courts, not the Department. That is the level of independence afforded by a Crown appointment, and that is what is needed for the small business commissioner to be as effective as possible and to deliver for small businesses and enterprise.

The Australian model, for example, is not an appointment by a Minister; it is an appointment by the Governor-General, the Queen’s representative. That is the direct equivalent of what we are proposing. Three significant steps in the right direction were taken in the other place on this matter. The first was the designation of the small business commissioner as a corporation sole. The second was the amendment to have the small business commissioner appoint his own staff. The third was the new requirements on the Secretary of State to consult on any proposal to abolish the role. That is certainly a sign that we are moving in the right direction. It is a heartening indication that there is a shared sense that the small business commissioner needs to be free to act in the interest of small business. [Interruption.] I am fascinated to know what the Minister thinks is interesting, having heard what she has just said—she is very welcome to intervene and tell me. She is going to wait until her response.

Late payments and unfair payment terms are a long- term problem and they call for a long-term solution, with a role that is absolutely protected from the outset. These amendments to strengthen the independence of the small business commissioner offer that protection. The current commitment to establishing the role—the commitment to championing the interests of small businesses—is laudable. By strengthening the independence of the small business commissioner, our amendment would capture that commitment and change the conditions of appointment, removal and abolition of the post, which, as they stand, may leave the small business commissioner vulnerable in future.

That is a level of protection that remains even if the small business commissioner’s role sets him on a collision course with the Government of the day, as happened with the Information Commissioner over NHS IT programmes and the citizen information project. The Information Commissioner disagreed with the Government and did so publicly. We need that protection for the role of the small business commissioner—a clear statement in the legislation that says, “This post is here to stay and it will stand independent of Government, no matter the political priorities or budget constraints of the day.”

Establishing the small business commissioner as a corporation sole is a step in the right direction, but a corporation sole is more about the continuity of the post. It allows the post to pass without interval from one office holder to the next. It lays powers and legal status with the office, not the office holder, securing a level of continuity as the post passes from one person to the next. It gives the office holder some guarantee of independence, but the level of independence needed for the small business commissioner is not guaranteed purely by virtue of a designation of corporation sole.

Removing the ability of the Secretary of State to abolish the role is the key. If the small business commissioner is not appointed by, cannot be removed by and cannot be abolished by the Secretary of State, then he really achieves independence. This is the distinction between a corporation sole and a Crown appointment, and that is why our amendments are so important.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Hannah Bardell

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

That is a fair point. I will come back to some of the challenges and our concerns about the portals. Many small businesses do not use the web, so encouraging greater digital use is one of the many challenges for the Government.

There is great concern about retentions. The amendment has cross-party support, and hon. Members who spoke made their points extremely well. Often, between 2.5% and 5% of moneys are retained under the cash retention system, so it is massively difficult for small businesses to be as effective as possible. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made a point about businesses not taking part in apprenticeships and not investing in the future as a result of the scale of retention.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the review and these proposals are added to the Bill before Report?

[Bill Esterson]

It is incredibly important that that happens as quickly as possible, but SNP Members are in the same position as us: we are ultimately dependent on the Government for this to work, so we have to take the Minister’s bona fides. She is now on the record as saying that she will take action. I made the point that the recommendation was first made 52 years ago and it has been made on numerous occasions since. The problem is that businesses do not understand why we are waiting and why the Government and Parliament are taking so long to act. It is probably not until we come to this place that we start to understand why.

The Minister said it is too soon. A similar point was made in the Lords, and Labour peers accepted similar comments from Baroness Neville-Rolfe. We will wait and see for now, but if the review is finalised in March, the Bill’s Report stage may happen at about the same time.

I leave this thought with the Minister: if there is the opportunity, will she consider tabling amendments to take that into account? Let us challenge her Department and officials to table such amendments on Report to satisfy Members on both sides of the House. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

Small businesses in relation to which the Commissioner has functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 3, page 3, line 29, at end insert—

“(5A) The Commissioner may assist small businesses by taking an active and direct role in resolving, mediating or facilitating the resolution of disputes.”

This amendment would give the Small Business Commissioner the power to take an active role in resolving, mediating or facilitating the resolution of disputes.

We are talking about the important topic of mediation and facilitating the resolution of dispute, which is sometimes known as alternative dispute resolution. The amendment looks to learn from what goes on in Australia and would provide the commissioner with the opportunity to insist on mediation as a better way of solving disputes between two business parties than going to court, for example.

In the foreword to the July 2015 BIS publication “A Small Business Commissioner”, the Minister said:

“In Australia, the Victorian Small Business Commissioner is having a real impact on the ground.”

She told us earlier about her meeting with him. One reason why that commissioner is having an impact on the ground is that he has so many more powers than is proposed in the Bill. One such power involves being able to insist on mediation and to ensure that unfair payment practices are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That is not what is being proposed here. If the Minister really wants the United Kingdom’s small business commissioner to match the performance we see in Australia, she must give them the same tools and powers to do the job.

The staff of the New South Wales small business commissioner are formally trained in mediation. In Australia, attendance at mediation may be legally required by a court, and the small business commissioner may insist on mediation after the initial consideration of the complaint. Any decisions or agreements reached during mediation are signed by both parties and are returned to the small business commissioner, who can hold them to account if they do not keep their side of the agreement. Mandatory mediation is vital as far as the Australian model is concerned. The office of the Australian small business commissioner says:

“Mediation is so successful that most of all matters referred to us for mediation are resolved prior to having a court decide the matter… The mediation process is essential in minimising the costs of business and commercial disputes.”

Compulsory attendance at mediation in the Australian model is enshrined in the legislation that set up the New South Wales small business commissioner. Section 17 of the Small Business Commissioner Act 2013 states:

“If an application is made to the Commissioner for assistance in resolving a complaint or other dispute involving a small business and the Commissioner decides to deal with the complaint or dispute, the matter to which the complaint relates or the dispute may not be the subject of any proceedings before any court unless and until the Commissioner has certified in writing that alternative dispute resolution services provided by the Commissioner under this Act have failed to resolve the matter or dispute.”

There are various other requirements in other sections of the Australian legislation. At a national level, the Australian small business commissioner has similar powers. The Australian Government are undertaking to absorb the role into the proposed small business and family enterprise ombudsman, but the legislation is clear about mediation.

The value of mandatory mediation is not only in enabling the small business commissioner to see a complaint through to resolution but in ensuring that both parties follow a process that minimises cost and the risk of the complaint ending up in court. The balance of power must not be so weighted against the small business supplier that it is put off pursuing a complaint for the lack of cheap, accessible dispute resolution, something which we discussed earlier. This is about fairness, ensuring a level playing field, reducing costs, and producing commercially realistic solutions to disputes, including those involving late payment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Hannah Bardell]

Following on from the hon. Gentleman’s comments, we also welcome, as we did on Second Reading, the creation of a small business commissioner, but as we said then and as we believe now, it is important that the commissioner has real power and teeth to arbitrate and to take on issues when they are brought to them, rather than just to give advice. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that it is important that the commissioner is endowed with real powers to assist small business. It is important for the integrity of the office of the commissioner that it is regarded by small businesses as a route by which they can achieve a meaningful outcome. The current suggestion of a commissioner making recommendations or highlighting particular cases is simply not enough if they are to gain a reputation as a small business champion. All too often, such bodies do not have the power to bring companies into line. If we want a fair system across the board, further powers, such as those in the amendment, are important.