Free Trade Agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council: Negotiations Update
Douglas Alexander Excerpts(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government. Central to growing our economy and ensuring working people in every community feel the benefits of that growth, is an expansion of free trade agreements with strategic partners.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade announced the Government’s intention to deliver the UK’s FTA negotiations programme in July. Negotiations with the Gulf Co-operation Council resumed on 24 September. Since then, the UK has held ongoing virtual and in-person negotiations. This included a GCC delegation visiting London during the week of 21 October and a UK delegation visiting Riyadh during the week of 11 November.
To progress negotiations, I had productive discussions with counterparts in Saudi Arabia while attending the 2024 future investment initiative in Riyadh. This was ahead of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade’s visit to Qatar later in the week to attend the GCC Trade Ministers’ meeting on 31 October. This event provided a good opportunity to discuss key issues with Ministers from all member states and the shared ambition to move negotiations forward at pace.
Talks throughout the autumn have continued to be constructive, with good momentum from the GCC, which has enabled further treaty text to be agreed. The focus from both sides is on achieving a modern and commercially meaningful agreement.
A mutually beneficial FTA between the UK and the GCC will deliver economic growth, higher wages and new investment. A deal will deliver targeted growth that could increase bilateral trade by 16%, potentially adding an extra £8.6 billion a year to trade between the UK and GCC countries in the long run. This £8.6 billion is on top of the £57.4 billion worth of trade that we already have.
The negotiation is progressing at pace and good progress is being made in the following areas:
Services, investment and digital
Detailed technical discussions have been held across these areas, narrowing down outstanding issues in the text and setting out expectations for market access schedules. Constructive discussions have been had around mobility to better support the movement of business persons between the UK and the GCC. Investment remains a key area of interest for both sides, recognising the levels of inward and outward investment between the UK and GCC countries. A digital chapter, alongside provisions relating to innovation, reflect the shared ambition for a future facing deal, that can respond to the changes that technology will continue to bring to the global economy.
Goods
The aim of negotiators’ discussions on goods market access is achieving commercially meaningful outcomes. This is an important area for both sides, and we continue to press for further progress on key UK interests and look forward to building on these discussions in the coming weeks. We also made good progress in technical discussions on rules of origin and trade remedies and are working constructively with the GCC to narrow down outstanding issues in the text.
Other areas of note
Negotiators continued to have constructive discussions on areas of sustainable trade, including environment and labour, as well as making further progress through negotiations on disputes and transparency.
I value the important role that Parliament plays in the scrutiny of the Government’s ambitious trade agenda. We will continue to ensure that Parliament is appropriately updated while also ensuring we protect our negotiating position.
[HCWS333]
Draft Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Amendment) (Extension to Switzerland etc.) Regulations 2024
Douglas Alexander Excerpts(6 days, 9 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Amendment) (Extension to Switzerland etc.) Regulations 2024.
The regulations were laid in draft before the House on 4 November 2024. I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip issued in relation to the draft regulations as they were originally laid. It corrects a minor error in the date of the statutory instrument referred to in the explanatory note, and updates a footnote on page 4 to refer to the Welsh statutory instrument that was made on 18 November 2024.
The regulations implement the agreement on the recognition of professional qualifications that was signed by the UK and Switzerland in June 2023. The regulations place a legal duty on UK regulators to recognise comparable Swiss professional qualifications and provide regulators with the necessary legal powers to do so. That ensures a smooth and transparent system for Swiss professionals to have their qualifications recognised, which provides certainty for those wanting to work in the UK. In parallel, Switzerland is passing legislation requiring Swiss regulators to recognise UK qualifications, which means that UK professionals benefit from reduced barriers to working in Switzerland.
The Government are using powers contained in section 3 of the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 to make these regulations. Those powers were first used in December 2023 when the Government implemented the recognition of professional qualifications provisions of the UK’s free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein through the Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Implementation of International Recognition Agreements (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which I will refer to as the EEA-EFTA—European economic area-European Free Trade Association—regulations.
The provisions under the Swiss agreement are similar to those in the UK’s free trade agreement with the EEA-EFTA states. These regulations add Switzerland as a specified state to the EEA-EFTA regulations. The Swiss agreement also contains an annex that provides certain Swiss and UK lawyers with a bespoke route to recognition of professional qualifications between Switzerland and the United Kingdom. These regulations amend the EEA-EFTA regulations to implement those additional provisions for Swiss legal professionals.
The regulations will come into force on 1 January when the existing recognition of professional qualifications provisions in the UK-Switzerland citizens’ rights agreement expires. That will ensure continuity in the recognition provisions and a smooth transition between the systems for UK regulators and Swiss professionals.
I will briefly provide details about the regulations. They place a legal duty on regulators to recognise comparable Swiss qualifications. They prescribe the procedure that regulators must follow in recognising Swiss qualifications. They enable regulators to refuse to recognise Swiss professional qualifications where certain conditions are met, such as an applicant having inadequate English language proficiency. They prescribe compensatory measures that regulators can require a Swiss professional to take in certain circumstances, such as completing an adaptation period. They amend sectoral legislation to enable regulators to meet those requirements where they do not currently have the power to do so. They include specific provisions that apply to the regulators of advocates, barristers and solicitors.
Separately, the Department of Health and Social Care has taken forward legislation to regulate anaesthesia associates and physician associates. As regulated professions, they fall in scope of these regulations and the EEA-EFTA regulations. Therefore, these regulations extend the obligation on the regulator of anaesthesia associates and physician associates to comply with both sets of regulations.
I reassure the Committee that, under these regulations, it remains the responsibility of independent regulators to set the standards for their profession and to decide who meets those standards. In accordance with the statutory duty under section 15 of the Professional Qualifications Act, the Department for Business and Trade has carefully consulted regulators about the implementation of the agreement. A formal consultation ran from February to April 2024 and sought regulator views on the implementation, approach and regulations. The respondents were supportive and officials from my Department have engaged with regulators on the feedback received.
The regulations cover professions that are regulated centrally by the UK Government and professions that are regulated at a devolved level by Scotland and Northern Ireland. That approach has been taken after careful consideration and extensive engagement with the devolved Governments. The regulations do not apply to Welsh regulated professions. The Welsh Senedd made regulations implementing the agreement for Welsh regulated professions on 18 November, which will come into force on 1 January 2025.
To conclude, the regulations bring into effect the recognition of professional qualifications system contained in the Swiss agreement. They ensure that the UK is meeting its obligations under international law and provide certainty for regulators and professionals once the provisions in the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement expire at the end of this year. That brings tangible long-term benefits to the United Kingdom, and also means that UK-qualified professionals looking to practise in Switzerland continue to have access to streamlined recognition processes. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mr Alexander
The questions one always fears are the short ones that come with no thinking time, but I shall endeavour to answer the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Alexander
Exactly—and I am getting used to the challenges of being in government, as distinct from in opposition.
First, in all seriousness, I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I anticipate will be his support for the measures. He is entirely right to recognise that the work was undertaken under the previous Government and he can rest assured that the lodestar for the incoming Government in the last six months has been continuity where it makes sense in the interests of the United Kingdom economy. In that spirit, I hope that we can find common ground this evening.
As I set out, the regulations implement the UK- Switzerland recognition of professional qualifications agreement and require regulators to operate routes to recognition for comparable Swiss professional qualifications in accordance with that agreement. On the issue of extending mutual recognition, we will take a phased approach to make sure that we avoid the cliff edge that the hon. Gentleman eloquently described.
The hon. Gentleman can rest assured, however, that one of the early negotiations that we have initiated is on a Swiss FTA, which again reflects work that was undertaken under the previous Government. We have looked carefully at the mandate and negotiators have begun that process. When one looks for equivalent countries around the world where there are clear synergies in the character of the economy and the economic opportunities, Switzerland is high on that list. In that sense, whether in relation to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications or other aspects of our regulatory arrangements more broadly, we continue to look carefully at opportunities for UK-Swiss co-operation.
On the date of introduction for the Swiss legislation, I do not have that to hand. As I said, Switzerland is passing legislation to require Swiss regulators to recognise UK qualifications to ensure that the benefits are mutual. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about what we understand the Swiss parliamentary timescale to be.
As I have emphasised, the regulations continue to uphold the principle of regulator autonomy as set out in the Professional Qualifications Act 2022. My officials have also engaged extensively with regulators and the devolved Governments on the implementation. I trust that hon. Members understand and recognise the need for the regulations, as the hon. Gentleman set out, and the benefits that they will bring to the UK services trade. I thank hon. Members and commend the regulations again to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Douglas Alexander Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Our approach to trade deals considers the impact on and opportunities for the agricultural sector, along with other sectors of the economy, and, of course, our growth mission. The Government will publish impact assessments to aid the ratification process for new free trade agreements.
Dr Chambers
I worked with farmers for many years as a veterinary surgeon, and now I meet them regularly as an MP, so I am aware that farmers in Hampshire and the rest of the country were hugely disappointed when the previous Conservative Government signed trade deals that undermined our high animal welfare standards. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that after future trade deals, British farmers will not have to compete with products produced to lower animal welfare standards—for example, battery hens, or products that involve the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, which is also a public health issue? It is not only vets and farmers who are proud of our high animal welfare standards, but the British public, so will the Minister confirm that he does not want to compromise on those standards?
Mr Alexander
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing his considerable expertise in veterinary science to the Chamber today. We will not compromise on animal welfare standards as we take forward our programme of free trade agreements. Although we might well have approached the negotiations that the previous Government undertook in a different manner, reopening them would certainly create uncertainty, which we genuinely believe would hurt UK business. We are not seeing Australian or New Zealand beef and lamb flood the UK market, and we will continue to monitor trade flows under both those free trade agreements. He makes a very fair and important point about the need to maintain welfare standards.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
There is an established process in taking forward the Government’s discussions in relation to the mandate. On animal welfare standards, the Secretary of State has already alluded to how there was clearly considerable divergence during the previous attempts to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. I assure the House that we as a new Government continue to take issues of animal welfare extremely seriously.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020: Review
Douglas Alexander Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The smooth functioning of the United Kingdom’s internal market is vital to achieving economic growth. People and businesses depend on being able to buy and sell goods, provide services, and work across the four nations of the United Kingdom.
The Government are committed to working closely with the devolved Governments to deliver effective outcomes for people across the UK. To ensure the efficiency of the UK’s internal market, the Government consider common frameworks to be the key fora for supporting collaborative policymaking processes in the areas they cover, managing policy divergence between the UK’s nations where it occurs, and maximising the benefits of taking different, innovative approaches in different parts of the UK. We are therefore committed to finishing the common frameworks programme as soon as possible.
The UK Internal Market Act’s market access principles for goods and services, and system for the recognition of professional qualifications across the UK, can also play an important role in protecting jobs and livelihoods and promoting growth across the whole UK. Where they apply, they allow businesses, consumers and professionals to comply with the regulations in the part of the UK they are based in, to sell goods and provide services across the whole UK.
However, we recognise that the operation of the UK Internal Market Act can be improved, including more certainty and clarity when considering proposals which remove areas of regulation from the scope of the market access principles. We believe that the UK Internal Market Act should complement common frameworks and support collaborative policymaking.
To improve the management of the UK internal market, the Government will deliver an initial package of measures to demonstrate a more pragmatic approach. This includes a recommitment to the principles for common frameworks agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) in October 2017 between the previous Government and devolved Governments. This recommitment includes:
Developing closer working relationships and increased transparency between the Government and the devolved Governments on UK internal market matters that impact significantly on devolved responsibilities within common frameworks;
Acknowledging the benefits of policy innovation and shared learning on policy development and implementation, while enabling the smooth functioning of the UK internal market;
Aiming to finalise the common frameworks programme by Easter 2025 ensuring the necessary structures exist for joined up intergovernmental discussions around regulatory divergence and implications for the performance of the UK internal market; and
Agreeing an exclusion from the UK Internal Market Act’s market access principles regarding the sale of rodent glue traps, in response to the Scottish Government’s previous proposal, as this Government recognise this proposal has a minimal economic impact on trade within the UK.
The Government then intend to launch the statutory review of the UK Internal Market Act in January 2025, seeking the views of a wide range of public stakeholders, with the aim of completing the review by summer 2025. This is earlier than the statutory deadline of December 2025, as we recognise the importance of formally considering the role of the UK Internal Market Act in the effective operation of the UK internal market.
As a statutory minimum, this review must cover use of the powers in part 1 (goods) and part 2 (services), including the powers to add, delete or amend exclusions from the scope of the Act, and the arrangements relating to the use of the Office of the Internal Market to perform the functions in part 4 of the Act, covering independent advice and monitoring of the UKIM.
However, the Government recognise the importance of fully considering the operation of the Act beyond the narrow statutory requirements. Therefore, the Government will broaden the scope of the review to include the practical operation of parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Act, including inviting views on the process for considering exclusions from the Act, and the role and functions carried out by the Office for the Internal Market as set out in part 4. We will directly engage the devolved Governments in conducting the review.
[HCWS299]
UK Supply Chains: Uyghur Forced Labour
Douglas Alexander Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the links between the UK’s supermarket supply chains and Uyghur forced labour.
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK addresses forced labour in global supply chains under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which requires commercial businesses that operate in the UK and have a turnover of £36 million or more to report annually on the steps they have taken to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. The purpose is to provide transparency, whereby businesses monitor their supply chains with rigour, are open about their risks and mitigations, listen to their workers, and act when they do find issues.
In addition, the Department for Business and Trade takes a number of steps to address forced labour within UK supply chains. We negotiate and implement forced labour and modern slavery provisions within our free trade agreement programme, the developing countries trading scheme allows for the suspension of preferential trading arrangements on grounds of serious violation of labour rights, and UK Export Finance reviews environmental, social and human rights risk factors for transactions in the scope of its policy. We regularly engage with business and international partners in respect of both domestic and international tools to combat forced labour.
On Xinjiang specifically, we will continue to stand firm on human rights where China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities. The UK Government also expect, encourage and support UK businesses to undertake due diligence so that human rights and environmental issues are considered in their operations and supply chain relationships, in line with the OECD guidelines on responsible business conduct.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for his statement, but, with the greatest respect, what he has described is clearly not working.
Yesterday’s “Blood on the shelves” BBC investigation has rightly shocked the British public. Tomato products sold in UK supermarkets, with labels informing British customers that purées were “Italian made” or “produced in Italy”, were actually linked to slave labour in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region. Our weak and confusing product label regulation has allowed linguistic sleight of hand to occur with, one can only assume, the aim of misleading consumers. I have to push the Minister: what more evidence is required to prove that we need stronger labelling standards that give consumers more information on the sourcing countries of pre-packed products?
In the Uyghur region, egregious human rights abuses are taking place every single day, all underpinned by a system of state-imposed forced labour. It is estimated that several hundred thousand people are involved in the production of tomatoes against their will. The United Nations has reported forced labour, torture and abuse. Survivors of the tomato fields cite having to meet impossible daily quotas, with physical torture such as electrocution used as punishment for failing to meet those targets, yet tomato products created using these barbaric practices line the shelves of our supermarkets and are sold as if they had been produced in a completely different country.
Sadly, this investigation is just the latest in a long line of reports showing that UK supply chains are awash with Uyghur forced labour products. Clothing, steel and solar have a serious dependency on Uyghur forced labour. The Modern Slavery Act is itself currently unfit for purpose. Current laws mean that companies are legally allowed to self-regulate, as human rights due diligence is optional for UK companies. We are now an outlier on legislation to prevent human rights abuses. The United States has enacted important legislation, as has the European Union, but the UK, once again, is a global outlier when it comes to slave-made goods.
I urge the Government to work with me to implement stronger legislation, improve our labelling standards and champion human rights. To supermarkets, I say, “All of you are complicit in putting profits above human rights, and I hope that the British public do the right thing and make their mark through their pockets and their wallets.”
Mr Alexander
Let me first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for the consistency and focus that she has brought to this issue. It is not a new worry for her. I assure her that I shared that concern yesterday morning when I heard the reports and the allegations that were levelled in relation to tomato paste, and I also assure her that the Government will approach the company in question to try to establish more clearly the exact facts that underlie those deeply worrying reports.
I think we are again in complete agreement about the egregious character of the human rights abuses taking place in Xinjiang province. I am glad to say that the Prime Minister in his most recent meeting with President Xi Jinping, and indeed the Foreign Secretary in his recent meeting with his counterpart, specifically raised the issue of human rights in China, notwithstanding our willingness to engage directly with the Government of that country.
As for the work that we are doing, the formal position of the Government remains that we expect all companies to conduct business responsibly, in line with the OECD guidelines for multinational businesses on responsible business conduct and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights.
My hon. Friend mentioned the legislation that has been passed in the United States. In the United States, the European Union, Canada and Mexico, legislation has been introduced or is in the process of being introduced specifically for import bans to prevent such goods from entering their markets in the first place, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are reviewing the impact of those measures to inform what should be the UK’s approach.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the urgent question. Let me also welcome the Minister back to Parliament, as well as to his place on the Front Bench.
As the hon. Lady said, the human rights abuses taking place against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang are egregious. In government we took robust action, leading international condemnations and sanctioning individuals and an entity involved to tackle the problem at source. We also took further measures to ensure that British companies were not involved, including the introduction of export controls and financial penalties for organisations that fail to meet their obligations under the Modern Slavery Act. Those measures must be retained, and indeed reviewed, to ensure that British companies and consumers do not indirectly support the human rights abuses.
The Minister said that the new Government were committed to the measures introduced by the last Conservative Government. He also mentioned that two weeks ago the Prime Minister held a bilateral meeting with President Xi. In the read-out from No. 10, however, there was no explicit mention of human rights abuses in Xinjiang, which is disappointing. Can the Minister elaborate on exactly what was said at that bilateral meeting? Were human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang explicitly raised? If the Minister decides to meet his Chinese counterpart, will he commit himself to explicitly raising those human rights abuses? Indeed, will all Ministers across the Government always raise this issue in all their bilateral meetings?
The Government made a manifesto commitment to carry out an audit of our relations with China. Can the Minister confirm that the audit will cover trade and the issue of goods in the UK supply chain that are produced in Xinjiang? Can he tell us whether the impact of the accelerated roll-out of electric vehicles and solar panels and the 2030 decarbonisation target will also be audited? Given the Government’s so far unsuccessful mission to grow the UK economy, will the Minister agree that that growth must not come at the price of restricting our condemnation of human rights abuses in China?
Mr Alexander
I thank the Opposition spokesperson for her characteristically kind and generous words in welcoming me back to Parliament and, indeed, the Dispatch Box.
There is a tension between the first two questions we have heard, with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham observing that there is a need for radical transformation in the legislation and, on the other hand, the Opposition spokesperson asserting that it is adequate, although she drifted into demanding a review of her own legislation after only five months in opposition. We should try to find common ground, rather than score points.
I assure the hon. Lady that the Government stand firm on human rights, including in Xinjiang, where China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities. That includes raising our concerns at the highest levels with the Chinese Government, and co-ordinating efforts in international fora to hold China to account for human rights violations.
The hon. Lady asks specifically about where the treatment of the Uyghurs has been raised as a human rights issue. During the recent session of the Human Rights Council in September, the UK signed a US-led joint statement on Xinjiang, called out China’s persecution of Uyghurs and restriction of civil society, and urged China to engage meaningfully with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and to implement the recommendations made in its assessment. Where possible, the Government also conduct independent visits to areas of major concern and support non-governmental organisations in exposing and reacting to human rights violations. On previous occasions when I have visited China as a Government Minister, I have of course raised the issue of human rights, and I will continue to endeavour to do so.
On the hon. Lady’s rather ungenerous observations about the growth mission, it is perfectly possible for a Government to set themselves a clear ambition to raise the UK economy’s trend rate of growth, and to continue to be a strong and powerful advocate for human rights in China and elsewhere.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Like many, I was very concerned to see the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) referred. Does the Minister agree that forced labour is a threat to supply chains and to the resilience of our economy not just in our food sector, but across our entire economy?
Mr Alexander
I am in full agreement with my hon. Friend. For businesses to be able to invest and thrive, they need confidence in their supply chains, which is why the Government are establishing a new supply chains taskforce. The taskforce will work to assess where supply chains that are critical to the UK’s economic security and resilience, including those in the growth sectors identified in the industrial strategy, could be vulnerable to disruption. The taskforce will ensure that the Government work with business to address the risks, including by exploring wide-ranging policy solutions and other mitigations.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
May I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the urgent question, and welcome the Minister back to Parliament and to his place?
Food labelling and food safety are among the most important issues for our diet and for our health. They allow consumers to make informed choices, and to ensure that food is safe and consistent with consumers’ ethical and moral beliefs. I am very pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government will look at the impact of legislation in the US, the EU and other countries, particularly where it may involve import bans on products that have been produced using forced labour. May I press him to tell us the timetable for doing that review?
Mr Alexander
I thank the hon. Lady for her observation, and for the characteristically calm wisdom with which she spoke about issues on which I think there is a high degree of consensus across the House. Given that we have been in government for five months, it is appropriate that we review the effectiveness of the Modern Slavery Act, which, in its day, was clearly a pioneering piece of legislation that commanded support across the House. In that sense, the review and the desire to understand the impact of the Act are informed by more recent innovations, such as those in the United States, the EU and Canada. I can assure the hon. Lady that alongside the trade strategy that we are publishing and the industrial strategy that we aim to publish in the spring, we are already carefully considering the critical elements of other legislation and seeing whether there is scope for strengthening the approach taken by the UK.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that self-regulation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) referred, is often a euphemism for minimal or, indeed, no regulation? Is he confident that current legislation is sufficient to compel businesses operating in the UK to address the risks of modern slavery and, most importantly, the risks to the human rights of the people being exploited?
Mr Alexander
Notwithstanding the concerns that have been expressed in the Chamber about the existing statutory framework, we need to send a clear and unequivocal signal that no company in the United Kingdom that operates under the existing statutory framework should have any forced labour whatsoever in its supply chain. There are already rules in place to compel companies to publish statements demonstrating that they have met their very clear legal obligations, not least in relation to the exploitation of which my hon. Friend speaks.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—she is my hon. Friend in this case—on raising a really important issue. I also welcome another person on the Government Front Bench, who will remain nameless—I am sure that Hansard will pick them out.
The problem with all this is that it does not seem to matter who is in government; the Foreign Office and other Departments try to block everything to do with slavery. I was one of the people who drove through the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which we know is long past its sell-by date with regard to modern slavery. I tried to co-operate with the Government when they were in opposition, and we need to change the law, because we have real problems with net zero. Right now, we have polysilicon arrays coming in from Xinjiang in massive quantities, and nothing is being done about it. This is not just about Xinjiang; there are a quarter of a million people from Tibet in forced labour.
The only way to address the issue is to do what we did with the Health and Care Act 2022, which we amended to ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care had a duty to eradicate slavery. In America, supply chains are checked using forensic science provided by Oritain, but we do not do any of that. Will we move towards checking all supply chains, and put legislation in place to make it a criminal offence to have anything to do with slave labour?
Mr Alexander
Let me pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his sustained effort on, and interest in, these issues. It has come at some personal cost; he has received criticism from foreign Governments. He is an example to us all in this Chamber in his willingness to speak up for human rights without fear or favour.
On his point, first, I see the answer as involving enforcement of the current legislation. It is important to reaffirm that legislation is clear about companies’ mandatory obligations, regardless of whether they import from Xinjiang or elsewhere. Secondly, as I have said, we intend to look carefully at whether lessons can be drawn from other jurisdictions, notwithstanding the good efforts of the right hon. Gentleman and many others in this Chamber at the time of the initiation of the Modern Slavery Act.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)
Earlier this year, the Global Legal Action Network and the World Uyghur Congress filed a legal case against the National Crime Agency’s decision not to investigate suspected forced-labour goods from Xinjiang. That led to a landmark ruling, which established that any goods suspected of being linked to Uyghur forced labour can be considered criminal property when offered for sale in the UK. What measures have the Government taken in the light of that landmark decision? What protection is there, and what accountability measures are in place, in instances where UK businesses are still involved with goods produced from forced labour?
Mr Alexander
It is important to draw a distinction between the legislative approach taken by some jurisdictions, which have named countries and provinces where there is abuse of human rights, and the statutory foundation for the way that British business is expected to conduct itself, not least in relation to modern slavery and threats to the supply chain. Notwithstanding the ruling of which the hon. Gentleman speaks, the obligations on companies predate that ruling and are set out very clearly in the Modern Slavery Act.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
When the Modern Slavery Act was introduced in 2015, section 54 was indeed world leading. We were the first developed country to introduce any such legislation, but other countries have overtaken us. For many years, I have raised the US’s “hot goods” provisions, which have been referred to today. May I urge the Minister to look at introducing a form of regulation that would put the onus on the importer to prove that no forced labour was used to make a product before it was allowed to enter the UK supply chain, as happens in the US?
Mr Alexander
I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for the work that she has done—and to others for their work—both during and after the passage of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The Government recognise that the landscape has changed since the Act was introduced, and we are committed to tackling modern slavery through a holistic Government and society approach that places victims and survivors of this serious crime back at the centre of our work. I can assure her that we are considering all the Home Affairs Committee’s recommendations on this issue, which were recently published, and we will issue our response to its report in due course. In addition to that, we are considering what elements of other legislation are relevant to the Modern Slavery Act. I am willing to accept responsibility for the past five months, but I am conscious that she has been making these pleas for longer than that, and that her questions might be better directed to those on her side of the House.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome the urgent question and the response from the Minister, because the oppression that the Uyghur people face is absolutely appalling and shameful. The changing nature of supply chains and of retail means that this will be an evolving issue. Can I encourage the Minister to keep those relationships under review, and to reach out to retailers and distributors, so that our response changes in the light of the situation that we face?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which is that we want to do this with business, rather than to business. Of course there is varied conduct and there are varied levels of adherence to requirements in the business community, and particularly in the retail sector, but my sense is that overwhelmingly, responsible retailers want to get this right, as surely as there is consensus in this House that we need to get this right. We will listen carefully to the voice of retailers. As he recognises, just-in-time goods, fast fashion, logistics and supply chains are rapidly changing and evolving. Notwithstanding our willingness to engage with business, we have to recognise that sadly, some businesses will not accept a voluntarist approach and will need statutory regulation if we are to systematically address the exploitation about which so many of us are concerned.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), the US State Department has reported that products from clothing to pharmaceuticals, and everything in between, have been tainted by slave labour, and they have found their way into homes and businesses around the world. In 2021, President Biden signed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which said that
“all goods, wares, articles and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part”
in Xinjiang could not enter the United States unless the importer could prove that what they were importing had not been produced by slave labour. Given that UK regulations are simply ineffective, will the Government look to introduce something similar to the US provisions in the UK, and put the onus on importers, rather than consumers?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Since 2022, the US has been operating an import ban targeting goods from Xinjiang under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. The Act sets out a rebuttable presumption that goods made in Xinjiang or produced by certain listed entities use forced labour. It is right to recognise that the State Department bears the significant cost implications of that. We as a Government certainly view import controls as one of the range of tools that could be used to tackle forced labour in global supply chains, and that is why we continue to engage with like-minded partners—Governments and businesses—to figure out exactly what is the most effective response.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is not the root of the problem
the fact that successive British Governments, from David Cameron’s onwards, have been willing to cuddle and cosy up to a communist totalitarian state, while trying to preserve some pretence of distancing themselves from direct human rights abuses? In reality, is it not the case that as long as we try to have major economic relations with a totalitarian state, it will always be possible for that state to divert the slave labour products to its domestic economy and export the other products to us? So that action is really only a fig leaf, isn’t it?
Mr Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman brings many years of experience to the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and China, and he will find no disagreement on this side of the House when he calls out the disastrous foreign policy mistakes of the former Member for Witney. We seem to have ended up with the worst of both worlds in relation to China. First, there was a credulous naivety during the so-called golden era, when the then Chancellor and Prime Minister did not recognise the appropriate national interests of the United Kingdom. This was followed by a period when the United Kingdom, almost uniquely, seemed to be in the deep freeze. The last time a Prime Minister of this country met President Xi Jinping was, I understand, under the former Member for Maidenhead. Our approach was neither clear-eyed nor capable of communicating influence; nor did it allow us to raise human rights issues in the way that we wanted to.
The responsible course for a British Government is to recognise the complexity of the bilateral relationship, and the fact that there are significant trade dependencies and geopolitical challenges. The right and responsible course is the approach that has been taken since 4 July. The Prime Minister had a meeting with Xi Jinping a couple of weeks back, but clearly said that engagement will be pragmatic, and based on a clear-eyed sense of where Britain’s national interest lies. Alas, we have not seen that clarity or that steady stewarding of the British national interest over the past 14 years, but I am relieved that, through the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, we have brought a different dimension to the relationship in the last five months.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My constituents are angry that this Government want to cover Lincolnshire’s beautiful countryside with solar panels, ruining the landscape and damaging food security, but they are particularly horrified to hear that many of those solar panels could be produced using slave labour. The Minister has talked about increased import controls as a way of preventing that. When does he plan to introduce them, and what are the further measures that he alluded to?
Mr Alexander
I am not sure that I am in agreement, notwithstanding the high degree of consensus in the House, with the hon. Lady’s opposition to solar farms. We believe that the essential transition to a net zero economy requires not only onshore wind but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade has made clear, offshore wind, on which the United Kingdom is rightly a leader, as well as onshore solar. We are simply in disagreement if the hon. Lady’s argument is that we should oppose solar farm development. That being said, she is entirely right to recognise that the net zero transition should not be at the cost of any latitude on the clear provisions of the Modern Slavery Act. It is mandatory rather than voluntary. That legislation was introduced by our predecessors, and we are considering it carefully in the light of change in other jurisdictions, but it none the less places clear obligations on those seeking to import to the United Kingdom.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
Douglas Alexander Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
On 27 and 28 November 2024, I attended the eighth meeting of the commission of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership in Vancouver, Canada, where a number of issues were considered by CPTPP Ministers.
Future accessions to CPTPP
At the meeting, a formal commission decision was taken to commence a CPTPP accession process with Costa Rica via establishment of an accession working group.
CPTPP Ministers have reaffirmed on several instances that CPTPP is open to accession requests by economies that can satisfy the “Auckland principles”, namely;
preparedness to meet the agreement’s high standards;
a demonstrated pattern of complying with trade commitments; and
recognition that decisions are dependent on the consensus of the CPTPP parties.
Through extensive discussions and deliberations on all accession requests, the UK and other CPTPP members have identified that Costa Rica can satisfy the three Auckland principles. As such, in Vancouver, CPTPP Ministers formally decided to commence the accession process with Costa Rica and establish an accession working group.
This move demonstrates that CPTPP remains a living agreement, and one which is designed to expand and bring in new high standards economies. Over time this expansion process will grow the global reach of the agreement, creating further opportunities for CPTPP members.
It is expected that the first AWG meeting will take place in the first half of 2025, during Australia’s year as CPTPP chair. The UK will continue to work with CPTPP members to consider and discuss the remaining accession requests in accordance with the Auckland principles, and the establishment of an AWG for Costa Rica will not prevent this process.
To ensure that interested stakeholders are provided the opportunity to feed in views on the accession process of Costa Rica, today the Department for Business and Trade will launch a period of public engagement that will run across eight weeks, closing on 24 January 2025. During this period, we will ask stakeholders what issues they would like us to consider when engaging in discussions on whether Costa Rica should join CPTPP and the terms on which they should join. The link to the public engagement questionnaire can be found online at https://ditresearch.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2bnop4ZwgdoyNVk
CPTPP general review
In addition to discussing future accessions, CPTPP Ministers also discussed progress on the CPTPP general review during the meeting in Vancouver. The joint ministerial statement—known as the “Vancouver statement”—published following the meeting summarises the progress made in 2024, during the first phase of the general review, and sets out the forward workplan for 2025. In 2025 members will deepen their discussions on whether and how the agreement should be revised or updated to remain relevant to the trade and investment issues and challenges we all face today, including in a number of areas of particular interest to the UK. The Vancouver statement can be found online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cptpp-joint-ministerial-statement-in-vancouver-canada-28-november-2024
The Department for Business and Trade has also today published a factual summary of responses received to the public engagement period on the general review which was carried out from January to February 2024. These responses continue to inform our ongoing engagement in the general review.
Entry into force
CPTPP Ministers at the meeting also warmly welcomed the impending entry into force of the agreement for the UK. In that vein, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that the UK will accede to CPTPP on 15 December 2024 and that the agreement will come into force on this date with Japan, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Vietnam, Peru, Malaysia and Brunei. Australia also recently ratified the UK’s accession protocol, on 25 October 2024, which means the agreement will enter into force with Australia on 24 December 2024. The deal will come into force with the remaining parties 60 days after they each ratify.
When the UK accedes, the CPTPP will become a truly global trade deal, bringing new opportunities for British businesses, supporting jobs across the entire UK, and shaping the future of international trading rules.
[HCWS267]
Republic of Korea Upgraded Free Trade Agreement: Round Three Negotiations
Douglas Alexander Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The third round of negotiations on an upgraded free trade agreement (FTA) with the Republic of Korea (RoK) took place in Seoul between 5 and 14 November 2024.
The talks were the UK’s first with the RoK since the Secretary of State for Business and Trade announced the Government’s intention to deliver the UK’s FTA negotiations programme in July.
Economic growth is our first mission in Government and FTAs have an important role to play in achieving this. An upgraded FTA with the RoK will contribute to growth, jobs and prosperity in the UK, and provide long- term certainty to UK businesses. Improvements to the existing agreement will include a comprehensive chapter on digital trade, simplified rules of origin and a range of additional commitments that capture advancements in trade policy beyond our existing terms. Total trade between the UK and the RoK was worth £17 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q2 2024. An upgraded FTA is intended to support further growth in this trade.
Negotiators made good progress on a number of areas, including but not limited to:
Digital trade
Constructive discussions were held to build on the existing agreement’s limited digital provisions. Discussions during the round covered a range of areas, including data, trade digitalisation, and co-operation on emerging technologies.
Rules of origin
Good progress was achieved towards securing a new rules of origin chapter that supports current and future supply chains. Discussions covered the chapter’s general provisions and origin procedures text, as well as product specific rules.
Services and business mobility
Productive discussions were held across a range of areas including domestic regulation, financial services, business mobility and professional and business services. The UK is seeking commitments to open up new opportunities for services trade.
Customs and trade facilitation
Good progress was made, with sides agreeing a large part of the chapter. These commitments will make customs processes more predictable and facilitative.
Good regulatory practice
Negotiators made significant progress towards agreeing the RoK’s first good regulatory practice chapter, which will support companies to operate in a more transparent and predictable regulatory environment.
Other areas
Positive discussions were held across a range of areas of the FTA including supply chains, trade and gender equality, and anti-corruption.
The Government will only ever sign a trade agreement which aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors, including protections for the national health service.
The fourth round of negotiations is expected to take place in London in the spring of 2025. The Government will continue to work towards delivering outcomes in the FTA that secure economic growth for the UK and will update Parliament on the progress of discussions with the RoK as they continue to develop.
[HCWS258]
Uyghur and Turkic Muslims: Forced Labour in China
Douglas Alexander Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) not just on his recent election, but on securing this important debate. I feel obliged to declare an interest in paying that compliment, given that I have known, campaigned with and long admired the political judgment and moral seriousness of the new Member for East Renfrewshire—I know how dearly he holds that title as a local representative of that community. What we witnessed today in his remarks evidenced not only that he will be a doughty local fighter, but that he has the kind of global perspective and moral conscience that will serve this House.
I thank all the others who have participated in our debate, which was genuinely worthy of the seriousness and urgency of the matters under discussion. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke with characteristic passion and clarity in his advocacy of the need for urgent action. I will endeavour to return to the specific points that various Members have made, but I will offer a few introductory remarks before going into more detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) brought to the debate careful research, particularly on the car industry’s risk of sourcing goods produced through forced labour. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) made the case with passion and force that clean energy must not mean procurement secured through slave labour—an approach with which I wholeheartedly agree. I am particularly grateful to her for sharing the deeply harrowing accounts of those she has had the privilege of meeting in recent days, and for bringing that perspective and understanding to our debate.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), the Liberal Democrats’ new Front-Bench spokesman, spoke with characteristic eloquence and raised a number of points that I will seek to address. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for his gracious words. With no disrespect to his remarks, I sense that there are much bigger issues at play this morning than the future prospects of either of us.
It was two years ago that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights released its assessment of the situation in Xinjiang. It concluded that clear evidence had been found of serious human rights violations and that the scale of the arbitrary and discriminatory detention of Uyghurs and other largely Muslim minorities within Xinjiang
“may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”
Multiple other bodies and independent human rights experts have since taken similar views, relying extensively on China’s own records. Those findings and recommendations detail evidence of large-scale arbitrary detention; family separation, as we heard very eloquently from the hon. Member for Strangford; enforced disappearances; forced labour; systemic surveillance on the basis of religion and ethnicity; severe restrictions on cultural, religious and linguistic identity; torture; sexual and gender-based violence, including forced abortion and sterilisation; and the widespread destruction of religious and cultural sites. The Government are deeply and sincerely concerned about those human rights abuses, and we continue to work with international partners to find ways of effectively holding China to account.
Last month, the UK signed an Australian-led joint statement at the UN Third Committee that called on China to uphold its international human rights obligations; implement United Nations recommendations; release individuals arbitrarily detained in Xinjiang; and allow access to Xinjiang for independent observers to evaluate the human rights situation. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire suggested, sunlight is not sufficient, transparency is none the less essential. We therefore want those independent advisers and observers to evaluate the human rights situation.
The United Kingdom has also undertaken direct action against those who have aided or abetted these activities. In 2021, under the previous Government, the United Kingdom announced sanctions against four Chinese officials and one entity based on compelling and widespread evidence of serious and systemic human rights violations in Xinjiang. The Government also conduct independent visits to areas of major concern where possible, and continue the delicate but vital work of supporting non-governmental organisations in exposing and reacting to human rights violations.
More widely, this Government are carrying out a comprehensive audit of the UK’s relationship with China, as we have discussed this morning, to improve our ability to understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities that China poses in today’s world. Work on the audit is ongoing and will inform the long-term and consistent approach to China that the Government will set out. I was asked whether it is being led by the Department for Business and Trade, and whether we are therefore meeting the Uyghurs in DBT. The audit is actually being led out of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but I can assure the House that efforts are being made to ensure that voices are heard as part of this comprehensive audit.
For that work, engagement with China is vital so that we can not only co-operate on shared challenges but challenge it on areas where we disagree. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised human rights in their introductory discussions with President Xi and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and the Foreign Secretary raised human rights with Wang Yi again in Beijing last month. The Foreign Secretary has also called on China to lift the unwarranted and wholly unacceptable sanctions on UK parliamentarians—a matter to which I will return. That will remain a top priority for the Government.
I now want to address some of the specific legislative and regulatory measures that the Government and the Department use to address forced labour, before coming to colleagues’ questions. That work is a vital part of the Government’s efforts to ensure businesses do not use forced labour or cause or contribute to other human rights abuses and violations within their supply chains, no matter where they operate in the world. The UK addresses forced labour in global supply chains under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which requires commercial businesses that operate in the UK and have a turnover of £36 million or more to report annually on the steps they have taken to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. The purpose is to provide transparency and ensure businesses monitor their supply chains with rigour, are open about their risks and mitigations, listen to their workers, and act where they find issues.
We have also taken action under the Procurement Act 2023 to strengthen the rules on excluding suppliers linked to modern slavery. A number of Members asked whether our commitment to clean energy will come at the cost of the integrity of our approach to procurement. I can assure them that it will not. For instance, the Act expands the mandatory exclusion grounds that apply if a supplier or a connected person has been convicted of certain offences under the modern slavery legislation. Suppliers can be investigated for debarment on modern slavery grounds, and may be placed on a central debarment list of suppliers that must or may be excluded across the whole of the public sector.
In addition, my Department takes a number of steps to address forced labour within UK supply chains. We negotiate and implement forced labour and modern slavery provisions within our free trade agreement programme. The developing countries trading scheme allows for the suspension of preferential trading arrangements, specifically on grounds of serious violation of labour rights. UK Export Finance also reviews environmental, social and human rights risk factors for transactions in scope of its policy responsibilities.
Furthermore, our overseas business risk guidance makes clear to UK companies the risks of operating in certain regions that we have been discussing today, and urges them to conduct appropriate due diligence. The UK Government expect, encourage and support UK businesses to undertake due diligence so that human rights and environmental issues are considered in their operations and supply chain relationships, in line with the OECD guidelines on responsible business conduct and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights.
On supply chain due diligence legislation, the UK maintains regular dialogue with the European Union following the recent passage of the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, and the Government continue to review how we in the United Kingdom can best tackle forced labour and environmental harms in supply chains. We also regularly engage with business and international partners on domestic and international tools to combat forced labour. Our trade and forced labour business roundtable allows businesses and the Government to come together to speak frankly, and it gives His Majesty’s Government the opportunity to understand how we can better support businesses than has been the case in the past in their efforts to combat forced labour in supply chains globally.
That package of policy tools goes some way towards addressing the concerns that have been raised today, but I assure the House that there are absolutely no grounds for complacency. In line with sustainable development goal 8.7 and commitments made through the G7, referenced earlier, the Government are committed to ensuring that no company has forced labour in its supply chain. With that in mind, we continue to consider actor-agnostic measures that would improve worldwide supply chain transparency and traceability.
We are aware, however, that some sectors are at higher risk of forced labour in their supply chains. A number of contributions have focused on solar supply. On solar supply chains, the Government are committed to tackling the issue of Uyghur forced labour, including the mining of polysilicon used in the manufacture of solar panels, about which my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire spoke so eloquently, and are therefore taking robust action.
The solar taskforce has been relaunched by the Government and will specifically focus on identifying and taking forward the actions needed to develop resilient, sustainable and innovative supply chains that are free from forced labour, to support the significant increases in the deployment of solar panels needed to meet the ambition that we discussed this morning to increase UK solar power capacity by 2030.
On cotton and auto supply chains, about which a number of hon. Members spoke, we have been clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chains. As I have set out, there are rules in place to compel companies to publish statements demonstrating they have met their legal obligations on modern slavery.
Let me seek to address some of the other specific questions raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford spoke about the harvesting and trafficking of human organs. That is a heinous crime that deserves our complete and unequivocal condemnation. The Government are determined to stamp out that form of exploitation, by catching the perpetrators and safeguarding the victims. There are a range of offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Human Tissue Act 2004 that were extended on 1 April 2024, ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable, leaving no room for this crime to go unpunished.
On the further question from the hon. Member for Strangford about sanctions, I have spoken in general terms about the approach the Government are taking. Let me be more explicit: China’s sanctions are completely unwarranted and unacceptable. The issue will remain a priority for the Government, given the integrity and importance of our democratic legislature in the House of Commons. The Foreign Secretary has called on China to lift the sanctions, in meetings with his Chinese counterpart Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations meeting in July and during his most recent visit to Beijing on 18 October.
The sanctions announced by the UK on 22 March 2021 against four Chinese officials and one entity were based on compelling and widespread evidence of serious and systemic human rights violations in Xinjiang. Although 30 countries were united in sanctioning those responsible for those violations, China’s response was simply to retaliate against its critics.
On the point about genocide raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham and a number of colleagues, it is the long-standing policy of the British Government that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for the competent national and international court, rather than for Government or non-judicial bodies. Regardless of any court’s decision, this Government will stand firm on human rights, including China’s repression of Uyghurs and others in Xinjiang. That includes raising our concerns, as I have suggested, at the highest levels of the Chinese Government, and co-ordinating efforts with our international partners to hold China accountable for the actions it takes, and to account for human rights violations. For example, as I mentioned, on 22 October the UK joined Australia’s statement at the UN Third Committee on China’s human rights situation.
On whether the UK will issue sanctions against perpetrators—those accused of having forced labour in their supply chains—we keep all evidence and potential listings under close review. It is not appropriate for me to speculate about whom we may designate in the future, as doing so could reduce the impact of those designations, but I have listened carefully to the points made in the debate.
The hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire asked whether we would impose stricter regulations. The United Kingdom recognises the importance of ensuring that businesses are not complacent on the issue of forced labour and human rights violations. I can assure the hon. Member for Strangford that we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the existing measures about which I have spoken today, as well as monitoring the impact that other countries’ measures are having, to reach a view about the appropriate approach to tackling forced labour effectively.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire raised the issue of GB Energy and solar. I have spoken about the solar taskforce, and I hope that that provided some comfort. We are working with colleagues across Government on the issue, and the Government are united in their determination. The solar taskforce has been relaunched to develop sustainable supply chains, and it will of course give due consideration to this issue. The solar stewardship initiative will support the delivery of the solar road map. The Procurement Act also strengthens rules around existing suppliers that are linked to modern slavery.
In relation to other issues that have been raised, I can assure Members that we will continue to work with domestic and international businesses across all sectors of the economy to ensure that their supply chains are diverse, resilient and, of course, free from human and labour rights abuses.
Finally, I should address the issue of direct cargo flights from Ürümqi to Bournemouth, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire. Border Force does not assess whether goods on freight entering the UK may have been made using forced labour, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to working with partners to ensure that we can best tackle forced labour in supply chains.
As I say, we are continuing to assess and monitor the effectiveness of the steps that we have taken and will continue to take. The Government will continue to assess emerging policy tools, such as the import bans introduced by international partners, to understand their effectiveness in tackling forced labour in supply chains. That includes our better understanding the potential impacts here in the United Kingdom of the operation of the US measures, about which a number of hon. Members spoke, and the implementation of the EU forced labour regulations.
Summarising the sentiment and approach of the Government, I find that we are in broad agreement with the points made about the character of the forced labour crisis, as well as with hon. Members’ sincere and genuine desire to address these issues. Thankfully, the United Kingdom is still a leading voice in international efforts to defeat modern slavery and end human and labour rights abuses in public and private sector supply chains, and we will continue to assess the most effective ways to address these issues.
I can assure colleagues that we will continue to stand firm on human rights, including in Xinjiang, where China continues to persecute and arbitrarily detain Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim minorities. That includes raising our concerns at the highest levels with the Chinese Government, as the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done, and co-ordinating our efforts in international fora such as the G7 to identify, expose and hold China to account for serious and systemic human rights violations.
May I thank you again, Mr Dowd, for your service to the House today, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire for raising this urgent topic? I assure him and other hon. Members that the Government are sincerely committed to tackling these issues. We will continue to work to ensure that UK supply chains are free from forced labour and to speak out against human rights abuses, no matter where we find them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Douglas Alexander Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I can assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is committed to advancing both free and fair trade around the world that is inclusive, sustainable and seeks to reduce poverty. The UK’s aid-for-trade programmes, including the new Trade Centre of Expertise announced by the Prime Minister on 24 October, build the capacity of producers, businesses and Governments in developing countries to participate in, and prosper from, global trade. I can assure my hon. Friend that the UK is committed to making the world a safe and more prosperous place through strengthening our international development work, as set out in our recent manifesto.
Sam Rushworth
Children from Timothy Hackworth primary school in Shildon wrote to ask me to raise fair trade with the Minister as part of their fair trade week. They included Ashton, who reminded me of the privilege that we have to serve in this place. They would also like to know whether the Minister has met representatives of the Fair Trade Foundation since his appointment, and whether he considers that Britain’s leadership on fair trade policies can make a meaningful contribution to reducing poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.
Mr Alexander
First, let me commend my hon. Friend for his work with the local primary school. I know how assiduous he is in advancing the interests of his constituents. I can assure him that we fully understand the importance of fair trade. I have met a representative of the Fair Trade Foundation in recent weeks, and I pay particular tribute to the work that Fairtrade is doing with the Co-op. Thousands of farmers producing goods such as tea, coffee, sugar and flowers are helped by Co-ops in our high streets across the country. It is now the UK’s largest seller of fair trade products, and it deserves our commendation too.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The international investment summit, about which we just heard, secured more than £63 billion, including for two significant projects in Scotland. Scottish Power, owned by Iberdrola, committed £24 billion to upgrade the UK’s energy infrastructure over the next five years. Floating offshore wind developer Green Volt has selected Aberdeen for its headquarters and plans to invest £2.5 billion. That, of course, comes on top of this Government’s establishment of GB Energy.
John Grady
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Yesterday saw the largest Budget settlement for the Scottish Government in devolution’s history. The Labour party’s commitment to Scotland runs through this Government. Last week, the highly respected Strathclyde University’s Fraser of Allander institute reported that only 9% of Scottish businesses agree that the Scottish Government understand the business environment in Scotland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Government understanding of business is crucial in driving investment and growth in Scotland, and that it is critical that the Scottish Government improve their understanding of the business environment?
Mr Alexander
Frankly, businesses in Scotland have been let down by two failed Governments. We have had a decade of division and decay in Scotland, and I am glad to see that we now have political stability, with Labour having a majority in Scotland, Wales and England. At the same time, we are committed to genuine partnership and working with the Scottish Government. I know that my hon. Friend has particular expertise in energy policy, given his past professional work. Tomorrow I will be in Torness, in my constituency, to meet EDF Energy—just one example of a business that, frankly, is being held back by the policy and approach of the present Scottish Government.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I am not surprised in the slightest to hear the disparaging comments from those on the Government Benches about business in Scotland, so I will bring the House up to speed. For the ninth consecutive year, Scotland, under the SNP Scottish Government, is the UK’s top-performing area outside London for foreign direct investment, yet Brexit has reduced the attractiveness of the UK as a base for exporting to EU markets, resulting in its being overtaken by France as the leading destination for foreign direct investment in Europe. Does the Minister recognise that reversing what he seems to be married to at the moment—the Tories’ hard Brexit—is the most significant step that this Government could take to increase inward investment and boost growth in Scotland?
Mr Alexander
As I was saying, let me deal with both the failed Governments who have been letting Scotland down in the last decade. Frankly, if the hon. Gentleman wants to advance the case that there has been a decade of prosperity in Scotland, good luck to him. The reality is that it is very hard to think of a single aspect of Scottish public life that has improved over the last 10 years. Take the case of ferries. Take the case of hospitals. Take the case of our schools or, indeed, the broader business environment.
On Brexit, I recognise that there is a need for a fundamental reset with the European Union, and in recent days I have been taking forward that work. I welcome the work that the Prime Minister has been undertaking, but that is the task of a Labour Government. As so often on so many issues, the SNP talks and Labour delivers.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Farming and agricultural businesses employ thousands of people in my constituency, and they make a huge contribution to the local economy. Can the Minister set out exactly how yesterday’s Budget will help them to develop and grow?
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Farmers, like any other business people, need the stability that will be delivered as a consequence of our fixing the foundations, as we set out yesterday. I too represent a constituency with a number of farmers, and I am aware of the concerns that have been raised about inheritance tax, but, frankly, difficult choices had to be made yesterday because of choices that were not made by the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The International Court of Justice judgment from 19 July this year ruled that it is the duty of third-party states not to aid or assist Israel’s “unlawful occupation” of Palestinian territory. In the light of this, will the Minister tell us whether the Department for Business and Trade has obtained legal advice, or whether it is in the process of doing so, on the legality of the UK’s existing trade relations with Israel, and if it has, will he share it with the House, please?
Mr Douglas Alexander
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we work closely with our colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office who are responsible for the international humanitarian law assessment. My good and right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has updated the House on the changed advice received by the Government, and I think that I should leave it there.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the Minister meet me to discuss how the Government could further develop an industrial strategy to bring up to 10,000 jobs in the offshore wind supply chain over the next 10 years?
UK-Switzerland Free Trade Agreement Negotiations
Douglas Alexander Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The fifth round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement with Switzerland took place in London between 14 and 18 October 2024.
The talks were the UK’s first with the Swiss since the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) announced the Government’s intention to deliver the UK’s FTA negotiations programme in July.
Economic growth is our first mission in Government and FTAs have an important role to play in achieving this. A stronger trade relationship with Switzerland will contribute to growth, jobs and prosperity in the UK, providing long-term certainty on UK business travel to Switzerland and helping data and ideas flow seamlessly between two world-leading services powerhouses. Total trade between the UK and Switzerland was worth £50.8 billion in 2023.
Talks continue to be constructive, with both countries working towards agreeing ambitious outcomes in key areas, including services, investment and digital. The talks will facilitate UK-Swiss co-operation in areas of mutual interest that support growth.
UK negotiators made good progress in this round and covered almost all areas of the negotiation, including but not limited to:
Services, investment and digital
Productive discussions were held on key technical issues, as we work towards consolidated chapter structures and texts. This will allow us to continue to have further technical discussions on remaining issues—including but not limited to digital and business mobility—and move towards economically and commercially meaningful market access proposals.
Intellectual property
Talks continued to advance, this round, on a number of technical rights areas, building on the existing high standards in international fora and in our respective domestic regimes.
Government procurement
Overall, constructive progress has been made on chapter text that builds upon the World Trade Organisation agreement on government procurement, of which we are both members. Discussions on economically and commercially meaningful market access continue.
Innovation
Negotiators continued discussions on ways to future-proof an enhanced FTA, given the rapidly changing nature of the global economy and the need to respond and adapt to the trade opportunities and challenges that arise from innovation.
Goods, trade facilitation and regulatory environment
Negotiators exchanged market access offers on goods, with the aim of achieving commercially meaningful outcomes. Discussions continued on technical issues regarding the movement of goods between the UK and Switzerland.
Negotiators also covered issues relating to the overall functioning of an upgraded agreement, as well as areas of future co-operation.
The Government will only ever sign a trade agreement which aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors, including protections for the national health service.
Round six of negotiations is expected to take place in Switzerland in early 2025. The Government will continue to work towards delivering outcomes in the FTA that secure economic growth for the UK, and will update Parliament on the progress of discussions with Switzerland as they continue to develop.
[HCWS173]