Gender Recognition Act Consultation

Elizabeth Truss Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities if she will make a statement on the Government’s response to the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act 2004 outlined in the Government Equalities Office update of 22 September.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)]

We want transgender people to be free to live and prosper in modern Britain. We have looked carefully at the issues raised in the consultation, including potential changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004. It is the Government’s view that the balance struck in this legislation is correct, in that there are proper checks and balances in the system and also support for people who want to change their legal sex.

We will make the gender recognition certificate process kinder and more straightforward. We will cut bureaucracy by enabling applications via gov.uk, and we will also reduce the fee from £140 to a nominal amount. We know from our research that improving healthcare support is a priority for transgender people. That is why we are opening at least three new gender clinics this year, which will see waiting lists cut by 1,600 patients by 2022, and it is why the GEO is providing funding for Dr Michael Brady, the UK’s national LGBT health adviser, and working with him and the NHS to improve transgender people’s experience.

It is also important that we protect single-sex spaces in line with the Equality Act 2010. The law is clear that service providers are able to restrict access to single-sex spaces on the basis of biological sex. It is also important that under-18s are properly supported in line with their age and decision-making capabilities. That is why Dr Hilary Cass, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, will lead an independent review into gender identity services for children and young people. The review will look to ensure that young people get the best possible support and expertise throughout their care, and it will report back next year. Together, this upholds the rights of transgender people and women, ensures that our system is kinder and more straightforward, and addresses the concerns of transgender people.

[Crispin Blunt]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for enabling the Government’s overdue response to this consultation to be questioned by colleagues so promptly. This issue is of first-order importance to between 200,000 and perhaps 500,000 of our fellow citizens and their families. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could begin her reply with her analysis of why so many trans people choose to hide in plain sight.

I welcome and enjoy the dynamism that my right hon. Friend brings to her unprecedented, historic responsibilities in retaking control of British trade policy after nearly half a century. The command of technical, economic and legal detail required is at once intimidating and inspiring. As a great trading nation, that needs all her attention, and she has risen to the trade challenge.

My right hon. Friend’s acquisition of the equalities brief in September 2019 was hardly planned. The Prime Minister has done her and the nation no favours by continuing to overburden her after the election at such an extraordinary time for trade. The contrast between her reputation between in responsibility is horribly stark. On women and equalities, it is horribly stark set against the reputation and achievement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). It was in her tenure that we created the expectations that we were finally going to deliver on equality for trans people in principle, based on a comprehensive consultation itself based on work under the coalition going back to 2011.

Does my right hon. Friend the Minister understand the crushing disappointment of trans people with the content of her statement on Tuesday, set against the consultation on which it was based? Does she appreciate that trans people cannot discern any strong or coherent reason for this screeching change of direction? They are aware of the fear being used against them and fears, void of evidence, to sustain them. Does she understand the anger at the prospect of their receiving their fundamental rights being snatched away?

The longer the uncertainty has been allowed to continue, the worse the fear and anger have become. Does my right hon. Friend understand that the delay in the statement helped to contribute to that? Does she see that the underlying trend of the majority of people in this country is following the path set by a change of attitude in society a generation earlier towards those with different sexualities? This time, despite the complexities of understanding around trans, younger people in particular are more starkly intolerant of the cruelty of wider society’s inhumanity towards trans people. The vast, vast majority of lesbian, gay and bisexual people will stand in solidarity with trans people.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that her statement does not command a majority in this House? Will she confirm that that is one of the reasons why she cannot propose any legislation? She has presented the House with an inherently unstable settlement that will have to be addressed—hopefully sooner rather than later.

Does my right hon. Friend understand that when the pre-emptive statement she made to the Women and Equalities Committee earlier this year was properly explained to me, I gave this issue my full attention and that of the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights? I engaged with people who had different views to understand the compromises necessary to deliver reassurance around trans people, but also to be able to deliver trans rights. That work was done. It was given, quietly, in a comprehensive paper to the Government in early July and, tragically, it has been ignored.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I believe that the settlement we have reached balances and upholds the rights of transgender people and of women. It protects access to single-sex spaces. As I noted in my statement earlier, the number one concern of transgender people is improving healthcare services. The new clinics that we are putting in place will be the first new clinics in the United Kingdom for 20 years. We are also addressing people’s main concerns—the cost and bureaucracy—with the gender recognition certificate process, and I believe that we have come to the right conclusion, which is in line with other major nations.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)[V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. After three years of toxic debate, it is deeply disappointing that the Government have let trans people down and dropped their plans to reform the Gender Recognition Act. The debate around reform of the Act has been intensely fought and has caused great harm to many. Trans people face daily discrimination and the average wait for a first appointment with a gender clinic is 18 months, so it is vital that steps are taken to tackle discrimination and provide the services and support that people need.

The delay in responding to this consultation is completely unacceptable. Can the Minister tell us why it took so long? She failed to answer my question yesterday on whether the three new clinics mentioned in her statement were new, and we now know that they are not. What steps will the Government take to reduce the waiting times radically for people to access gender clinics? What will the Minister do to ensure that all public bodies, including the Government Equalities Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, produce statutory guidance that is in keeping with the legislation?

The Government are to make changes to the administrative process for obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Can the Minister tell us what the new online process will look like, what the new fee will be and when it will come into force? What is the timeline for when this new process will go live? Will she commit to ensuring that she engages with stakeholders in developing it? What steps will she be taking to tackle the rise in transphobia and misogyny?

Labour is committed to equality and inclusion for trans people and will continue to support updating the GRA to include self-declaration for trans people. We are also proud to be the party of the Equality Act 2010, and we will uphold it, not least because it plays a vital role in ensuring that we are an inclusive society.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure the hon. Lady that I brought this decision forward as much as I was able, given that it is a complex issue that we needed to thoroughly examine. I feel that where we have got to is the right place; it maintains the rights of transgender people and improves the process to make it kinder and more straightforward, at the same time as protecting single-sex spaces.

The hon. Lady asked about healthcare. I agree that that is a priority. That is why we are opening the first new gender identity clinics in 20 years and we are committed to ensuring that transgender healthcare is improved and waiting lists are reduced. We have funded Dr Michael Brady, our LGBT health adviser. There is definitely more work that needs to be done to ensure that services operate fully right across the country and across the national health service, and of course I am working very closely with the Health Secretary on that.

The hon. Lady asked when the new fee arrangements and the new online arrangements will come into place. The answer is that we will be doing that as soon as possible; obviously, it is an IT process that we need to get online, but I aim to introduce the new fee, which will be nominal, as soon as possible.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

Many of the trans community that I represent feel very locked out of the healthcare system at the moment. I welcome the comments that my right hon. Friend has made about focusing on healthcare, but can she assure the trans community that I represent that we will truly look at ensuring that the healthcare is accessible? For many, this issue has gone on for far too long.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that there are not enough services. That is why we are introducing new clinics. There is also an issue with support for the under-18s, which is why the NHS launched the Cass review yesterday. We are taking this issue seriously. I welcome the reduction in waiting lists, but of course there is more to be done and we need to work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to achieve that.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Sometimes people are opposed to the human rights of others in case they encroach on their own; it is an almost instinctive human reaction. When we as politicians want to ensure those human rights, it is about not just actions but language and education, so that we all understand each other and we are all in a place where we are happy for others with whom we do not necessarily identify to have equal access to human rights and opportunities. That said, action is crucial, and I am sorry to say that the Minister has failed on that front this week.

I am sorry to say that because the Minister’s language in the past has indicated better, and her failure to take action will have an impact on the many very distressed trans people who have written to me from across the UK. The fact remains that trans people continue to suffer poorer outcomes relative to the wider population, and that needs to change. We are now at a stage, in terms of equality, where the language we use around race, gender and disability, while not perfect, is getting there. Actions have been taken and laws have been written. We need more compliance and enforcement, but at least the laws exist.

This is a devolved matter and, yes, it is complex, but it is not too complex for the Scottish Government, who continue to have a strong commitment to reforming the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland before next May’s elections in 2021. There are many reasons for that. One reason is that everyone surely has the right to be who they are, but we also recognise that we must comply with international human rights law, and the way to do that is to have a system for obtaining legal gender recognition. Do the Minister and her Government recognise the need to comply with international human rights law? Do they care about that? The gender recognition panel takes applications from across the UK, and the Scottish Government will carefully consider what she has said and what it means for Scotland, so will she commit to co-operating with the Scottish Government?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am very interested in what the hon. Lady has said, because my understanding is that the Scottish Government’s draft Bill to reform the GRA has been paused. I would be very happy to take this up with her at a later opportunity. In terms of human rights law, of course we are committed to that and we continue to lead the world in LGBT rights and human rights. We will shortly be hosting an international LGBT conference.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to reflect on the need to treat members of the trans community with kindness and respect and to find a way to make the path to self-determination not only cheaper but easier?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and it is important that we address the issues that transgender people have had with the process—namely, the cost and the bureaucracy. We do not want finance to be a barrier to people to be able to go through the gender recognition certificate process.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

It has been well over two years since the Government first sought views on how to reform the Gender Recognition Act. The consultation received more than 100,000 responses, the vast majority of which were in favour of reform, yet the truth is that the Government have chosen to change little about the process of acquiring a gender recognition certificate. They have chosen to leave in place a lengthy, medicalised process that requires medical reports, statutory declarations, consideration by a panel, and more. Why have the Government taken so long to respond, only to ignore the wishes and destroy the hopes of so many in the trans community?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I made clear earlier, the Government do not believe in moving towards a model of self-ID. This is a serious process that has taken time for us to consider, but our view is that we need to maintain proper checks and balances in the system. We have addressed the issues that transgender people highlighted as important to them around healthcare, bureaucracy and the costs of the process, making the process kinder and more straightforward.

[Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend for engaging with me and others on this issue? The community are feeling frustrated by the lack of substance in the conclusion to this lengthy consultation. Notwithstanding her valid point about reforms to healthcare, will she acknowledge that these changes are minimal, with waiting lists of well over 13,000 people pre-covid? This is of great concern, given that research shows that 84% of trans people have thought about suicide, with 50% attempting it. Will she commit to further working with me and others who care passionately that the Government get this right? Will she report back to us on her work with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and on her progress?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I certainly agree that healthcare is the big issue of concern to transgender people, which is why we are focusing on improving the service received from the national health service. Of course, it is the Health and Social Care Secretary who is in overall charge of that, and I would be very happy to facilitate further meetings with Dr Michael Brady, our LGBT health adviser, and, of course, the Department of Health and Social Care, to make sure that we get this right and reduce those waiting lists.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the fact that the Minister has tried to take some of the heat out of this discussion and that she has at least come forward with some conclusions, because the wait has caused many of the problems. However, I fail to understand how her administrative changes will comply with the World Health Organisation’s requirement that by 2020 we remove gender dysphoria as a medical classification, seeing as the GRA is based on that medical classification. How will the Minister’s administrative changes fulfil our international obligations to remove that classification?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The administrative changes will make the process considerably better. As I have said, we are also putting additional resources into transgender services. The clinical diagnosis is a matter for clinicians, and the Health and Social Care Secretary is working with them on this issue. I think there needs to be a medical element to the process, so that there are proper checks and balances in the system, but the specific diagnosis is a matter for clinicians.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I am proud to be the first openly LGBT person to represent Carshalton and Wallington in this House, and I stand by the trans community in saying that their rights are human rights. The reforms are a welcome first step, particularly in relation to health, but they need to go further. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give that this is indeed the first step and is not the end of what we are going to do for trans people in this country, that we will bring the UK into line with countries such as Argentina and Ireland, and that we will make those changes that cost so little but mean so much to trans people?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I point out to my hon. Friend that on this issue we are in line with the vast majority of major European countries, and we are working, through our international LGBT conference, to improve the rights of LGBT people across the world. I am very proud of the leadership that we as a country have shown in areas such as equal marriage and other issues of LGBT rights. It is important to note, though, that while we do want to improve healthcare services—and I am committed to working with the Department of Health and Social Care on that—we do not believe in moving to a model of self-ID. We believe that the system needs proper checks and balances.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The problem is that the Minister is not showing leadership on this issue. The decision is wrong, the delay has been wrong, and the hurt caused to the trans community and to the non-binary community is wrong. That is what my constituents are telling me. She has heard the concerns from across the House. Does she understand the hurt to our fellow human beings, who are feeling deep distress and are deeply let down and deeply concerned about the direction in which this Government are going? And will she stop the off-the-record briefings to newspapers, whipping up hatred against the trans and non-binary community?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that not a single off-the-record briefing has come from me.

[Stephen Doughty]

Rubbish.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I do not appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s tone. I am being genuine and honest, and I am seeking to make this process kinder and more straightforward. I do not think that levelling such accusations at me is helpful.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker; it is very important that this Parliament demonstrates that it represents everybody in the United Kingdom, and I reiterate my solidarity with the trans community. Will my right hon. Friend clarify again the situation in relation to the three new clinics, as was implied by her statement on Tuesday? Are they new clinics in addition to the pilot projects previously announced? On their work, will she take on board the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), in terms of a number of 1,600 against the ever-growing waiting list?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The clinics are new. As for whether they are the pilot clinics previously announced, those in the Department of Health and Social Care are the experts on that, but they are new clinics and they will reduce the waiting list. Clearly, they will not reduce the waiting list to the extent that we need that to happen, and that is why we are working with that Department on what more can be done, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that we do not want people to have to wait for this important treatment.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

On 13 July, Baroness Barker’s office submitted a freedom of information request asking for details of who the Secretary of State met with regards to the Gender Recognition Act 2004. To date, there has been no answer. Will she now confirm whether she personally met trans-led organisations and trans people before making this important decision, which ignores the views and recommendations of a clear majority of those who responded to the consultation?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure the hon. Lady that I and the GEO have met with a wide variety of organisations. We have met 140 representative organisations, including LGBT and women’s organisations. I have also met a number of parliamentary colleagues to discuss this issue.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]]

There is a strong trans community in Darlington who are valued and appreciated by their employers. Over 200 company leaders have written to the Prime Minister in respect of trans rights. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the compatibility of the Government’s position on trans rights with that of corporate Britain?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have set out the Government’s position on transgender rights, in terms of making sure that we protect those rights and making the process kinder and more straightforward in improving transgender healthcare services. As for what corporates’ views are, that is a matter for them rather than the Government.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

I welcome the very measured and conciliatory tone that the Minister has taken today. I welcome the improvements to transgender health services and the protection of vulnerable women, in terms of the retention of single-sex spaces in places such as domestic abuse shelters. Will my right hon. Friend outline the Government’s approach to women’s prisons?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right that under the Equality Act 2010, service providers can restrict entry on the basis of biological sex. Of course, there are cases, such as women’s refuges and prisons, where that is an important issue.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

It has taken the Government nearly three years to respond to this consultation and, in that time, the trans community have had their hopes raised and now dashed. If my inbox is reflective of the inboxes of other Members, the trans community feel bitterly let down by the Government’s actions this week. This has to be seen in a context of rising hate crimes, and the Government’s response—I will pull the Minster up on this—is not in line with what other nations are doing. We can look to Argentina or the Republic of Ireland, our near neighbour, which is doing things very differently. The Republic of Ireland has had a de-medicalised, self-determined system for gender recognition since 2015, and it is working. I urge the Minister to look again and not to let down the trans community, who are some of the most vulnerable constituents we represent in the House.

[Elizabeth Truss]

In my statement, I outlined the work we are doing to improve transgender healthcare. In all the research work and engagement we have done, that comes out as the No. 1 issue for transgender people. Focusing on improving those healthcare services is the way to help people lead better lives.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s statement will make it easier for people to be who they want to be, while maintaining the integrity of the Equality Act. Many women have felt anxious during this process, so will she reconfirm her support for single-sex spaces where reasonable?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right that we are striking a balance between the rights of transgender people and the rights of women. The position is clear in the Equality Act that service providers can restrict the use of spaces on the basis of biological sex, and it is important that women’s spaces, which have been hard fought for over generations, are protected.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]]

In her written statement on Tuesday, the Minister stated that she wanted

“transgender people to be free to live and to prosper in a modern Britain”,

but between 2013-14 and 2017-18, recorded anti-trans hate crimes nearly trebled. What steps are she and her Government taking to tackle the discrimination, abuse and hate crimes that many trans people experience?

[Elizabeth Truss]

These crimes are appalling, and that is why the Home Office is taking very strong action to address them.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) said: while this is a very important step, it cannot be the destination; it can only be a step in a long journey. Does my right hon. Friend agree that under-18s should receive specialist support, and can she outline some of the measures that will be taken?

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right that under-18s need specialist support. That is why Dr Hilary Cass, the former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, has been appointed to lead an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people. It will be wide-ranging, looking at the referral route to specialist services, assessment and diagnosis, as well as best practice for services.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Despite a few crumbs of comfort, fundamentally, the Government are sticking with a process that the Women and Equalities Committee rightly said

“runs contrary to the dignity and personal autonomy of applicants.”

Instead of describing this as “checks and balances”, will the Minister recognise that, in actual fact, it is a breach of human rights and the Government should think again?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have said, we want to make the process kinder and more straightforward. That is why we are reducing the bureaucracy by putting it online and reducing the fee, so that finance is not a barrier to people being able to access these services. The most important thing we are doing is improving the level of service available within the national health service, so that more people are seen more quickly.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

UK’s Future Trading Relationship with the US: Negotiations

Elizabeth Truss Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

The fourth UK-US free trade agreement (FTA) negotiating round took place from 8 September to 18 September 2020.

There were 29 sessions held in this round, covering 16 different chapter areas. Significant progress has been achieved since launching negotiations in May 2020, and most chapter areas are now in the advanced stages of talks.

In total, 132 sessions have been held over the past four negotiating rounds, as well as an additional 30 inter- sessional discussions, involving officials from 20 different UK Government Departments and agencies.

In the fourth round, both sides continued to have detailed textual discussions, and negotiators are now in the process of consolidating texts in the majority of chapter areas.

Shortly before the fourth negotiating round both sides exchanged their first tariff offers, allowing a series of detailed market access discussions to be held during the round.

The exchange of tariff offers is a notable milestone, and the speed at which this stage has been reached demonstrates the momentum behind these negotiations.

Both sides reiterated their commitment to continue negotiations at pace throughout the Autumn in advance of the US presidential elections.

The fifth round of talks will take place in mid to late October, with additional intersessional discussions taking place between the fourth and fifth rounds. Further such talks will be held this week on telecommunications, intellectual property, market access, and rules of origin.

Below is a summary list of those workstreams discussed in the round:

Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)

Customs and trade facilitation

Competition

Technical barriers to trade (TBT)

Market access

Financial services

Good regulatory practice

Rules of origin

Investment

Economics

Cross border trade in services

Industrial subsidies

Sectoral annexes

Core text

Trade remedies

State owned enterprises

[HCWS461]

Gender Recognition Act 2004

Elizabeth Truss Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)]

Today, I am announcing the Government’s response to the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act 2004.



As a Government, we are determined that everyone in the UK should be free to live their lives and fulfil their potential regardless of their sex, gender identity, race or disability.



We are proud to have introduced same-sex marriage and passed the Turing law.



We want transgender people to be free to live and to prosper in a modern Britain. We have looked carefully at the issues raised in the consultation, including potential changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004.



It is the Government’s view that the balance struck in this legislation is correct, in that there are proper checks and balances in the system and also support for people who want to change their legal sex.

However, it is also clear that we need to improve the process and experience that transgender people have when applying for a gender recognition certificate—making it kinder and more straightforward. Our changes will address the main concerns that trans people themselves tell us they have about it.

In 2017, we conducted by far the largest survey ever of British LGBT people, with over 108,000 respondents, of whom 7,000 were trans. Of those who had completed their transition, around two in five said that they had a gender recognition certificate, a higher proportion than is often believed. The survey then asked those who had not applied what had prevented them from doing so. They were able to choose as many reasons as they wanted.

Some 38% told us the process was too bureaucratic. So we will place the whole procedure online. Some 34% said the process was too expensive. This, too, we will address. We will reduce the fee from £140 to a nominal amount.

We have also come to understand that gender recognition reform, though supported in the consultation undertaken by the last Government, is not the top priority for transgender people. Perhaps their most important concern is the state of trans healthcare. Trans people tell us that waiting lists at NHS gender clinics are too long. I agree, and I am deeply concerned at the distress it can cause. That is why we are opening at least three new gender clinics this year, which should see waiting lists cut by around 1,600 patients by 2022. The full benefit of the increases in clinical capacity that we have been able to secure will lead to greater patient choice, shorter waiting times, better geographical coverage and easier access. It will also make it easier to fulfil the medical requirements of obtaining a GRC.

It is why we last year provided funding for the UK’s first national LGBT health adviser to help improve transgender people’s experience.

Britain leads the world as a country where everybody is able to lead their life freely and treated with respect and that, for many years, transgender people have been widely accepted in British society: able to use facilities of their chosen gender; and able to participate fully in modern life.

At the heart of this is the principle of individual liberty. Our philosophy is that a person’s character, their ideas, and their work ethic trumps the colour of their skin or their biological sex. We firmly believe that neither biology nor gender is destiny.

The Equality Act 2010 clearly protects transgender people from discrimination. The same act allows service providers to restrict access to single sex spaces on the basis of biological sex if there is a clear justification.

We want every individual, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity to have the confidence and the freedom to be themselves. We will continue with our international leadership by hosting our international LGBT conference to make sure LGBT people around the world are safe to be themselves.

I am laying the analysis report of consultation responses as a Command Paper today and it will be published on gov.uk.

The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions- answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/ 2020-09-22/HCWS462/.

[HCWS462]

Japan Free Trade Agreement

Elizabeth Truss Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

I am delighted to announce that last Friday we reached agreement in principle on a free trade deal with Japan. The UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement is a major moment in our national history. It shows that economic powerhouses, such as Japan, want ambitious deals with the United Kingdom, and it shows that the UK can succeed as an independent trading nation. It shows that we can strike deals that go further and faster than the EU—British-shaped deals that suit our economy.

This deal will drive economic growth and help level up our United Kingdom. On tech, it goes far beyond the EU-Japan deal, banning data localisation and providing for the free flow of data and net neutrality, benefiting our leading tech firms. In services, we have secured improved market access for financial services and better business mobility arrangements for professionals and their families. On food and drink, up to 70 of our brilliant British products can now be recognised in Japan, from Welsh lamb to Yorkshire Wensleydale cheese, English sparkling wine and Stornoway black pudding. Under the EU deal, that was limited to just seven. We have also secured tariff reductions on British goods from biscuits to pork, as well as continued access for malt and Stilton cheese.

In manufacturing, lower tariffs on parts and improved regulatory arrangements will benefit major employers such as Nissan and Hitachi in the north-east. The deal strengthens our ties with the world’s third-largest economy and deepens the bond between two like-minded island nations who believe in free and fair trade.

One of our greatest Prime Ministers, Mrs Thatcher, saw the value of co-operating with Japan in areas such as the automotive sector and electronics in the 1980s, which attracted the likes of Nissan and Toyota to our shores and delivered lasting benefits. Now, in 2020, we will unleash a new era of mutually beneficial economic co-operation with our great friend Japan, pushing new frontiers in areas such as tech and services trade. Japan, as one of the world’s major economies, is a vital partner for the UK and one of the most significant nations in the Pacific region. Securing this Japan deal is a key stepping stone towards joining the trans-Pacific partnership, which is one of the world’s largest free trade areas, covering 13% of the global economy and £110 billion-worth of trade. Accession is vital to our future interests. It will put us in a stronger position to reshape global rules alongside like-minded allies. It will hitch us to one of the fastest growing parts of the world. It will strengthen the global consensus for free trade at a time of global uncertainty and creeping protectionism. Japan, alongside this agreement, has given its strong commitment for UK accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and last week I co-chaired a chief negotiators’ meeting of all 11 TPP countries—the first time that a non-member state has been asked to do this—where we discussed the path to UK membership. As negotiations progress, we will bring forward the formal application process to Parliament, and ensure that it is scrutinised openly and transparently.

As I have promised, there will be a full scrutiny process for the Japan deal and all the other agreements that we strike. Prior to entering negotiations, we issued a scoping assessment and published our objectives. During the negotiations, we have engaged extensively with business and stakeholders, including sharing sensitive tariff and market access information with our new trade advisory groups. We have established a Trade and Agriculture Commission to put our farmers at the heart of trade policy and ensure that their interests are advanced. When it is complete, I will be issuing a copy of the final deal to the International Trade Committee for scrutiny. We will also produce an independently scrutinised impact assessment, covering social, labour, environmental and animal welfare aspects of the agreement so that parliamentarians are able to interrogate the deal and prepare a report that is debated in Parliament. Ultimately, Parliament will decide whether to ratify the deal through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process or to withhold its support.

I am strongly of the view that this is a great deal for Britain. It benefits all parts of our country while protecting our red lines on areas such as the NHS and food standards. The agreement that we lay before Parliament will be the first of many, because there is a huge appetite to do business with global Britain and a huge opportunity for every part of this country to benefit from these agreements. This deal is a sign and a signal that we are back as an independent trading nation, back as a major force in global trade and back as a country that stands up for free enterprise across the world. This is just the start for global Britain.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and congratulate her on reaching this agreement. It is a much-needed relief for all those UK companies that would have seen their trade with Japan revert to World Trade Organisation terms if the agreement had not been reached by the end of the year. It is also a welcome benefit at a time of great economic uncertainty for the UK’s digital and tech sectors, and for other key exporters, which will benefit from greater access, faster tariff reductions or stronger geographical indication protections under this agreement than they enjoyed under the previous EU-Japan agreement. In the absence of a treaty text and a full updated impact assessment, there is much about the UK-Japan agreement that we still do not know and will not know until those documents are published. Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State can answer some initial questions today.

First and foremost, will the Secretary of State tell us, in billions of pounds and percentages of growth, what benefits this agreement will produce for UK trade and GDP over and above the forecast benefits of simply rolling over the existing EU-Japan deal? I was glad to hear her refer to consultation with the farming sector. Can she tell us what benefits the sector will derive from this deal if the EU reaches its tariff rate quota limit for agricultural products, and how that will compare with the benefits that the sector was forecast to derive from the EU-Japan deal? Will she also tell us what the impact of Friday’s agreement will be on the UK aerospace sector relative to the impact of the EU-Japan deal?

Let me turn to three specific issues. Given that there has been lots of discussion about Stilton, can the Secretary of State tell us exactly how the treatment of Stilton differs under the deal that she has agreed compared with its existing treatment under the EU-Japan deal? Given the current debate on state aid, can she confirm that the provisions on Government subsidies that she has agreed with Japan are more restrictive than the provisions in the EU-Canada deal, which No. 10 has said is the maximum it is prepared to accept in any UK trade deal with Brussels? On a similar subject, what provisions, if any, are included in the UK-Japan agreement relating to public procurement, and are they also consistent with the Government’s current negotiating position on an EU trade deal?

On the subject of Brexit, will the Secretary of State simply agree with me that, as welcome and necessary as this deal with Japan is, it is nothing like as important in terms of our global trade as reaching a deal to maintain free trade with the European Union? Our trade with Japan is worth 2.2% of our current global trade. That does not come anywhere near the 47% of trade that we have with Europe under the Government’s best-case scenario. The deal they signed on Friday will increase our trade with Japan by a little less than half in 15 years’ time. That is nothing compared with what we will lose in just four months if we do not get the deal with Europe that this Government have promised. That is why Nissan and every other Japanese company operating in Britain have told us that the deal that will determine the future of the investment and the jobs that they bring to our communities is not the one that we signed with Japan, but the one we sign with Europe.

I am glad that the Secretary of State has committed to a further debate on the agreement, given that there are many more questions to ask, but frankly there is no point in having that debate if Parliament does not have the right to vote. Will the Secretary of State guarantee today that once the treaty text and all the impact assessments have been published for proper scrutiny, she will bring the agreement back for a debate and vote, in Government time, just as will be done in the Japanese Parliament? It surely cannot be the case that this House will have less of a right to vote on a self-proclaimed historic deal agreed by the Secretary of State than will be enjoyed by our counterparts in Japan. May I ask her today to guarantee a vote, and to make it a precedent that will apply to all the other historic agreements she mentioned in her statement and that we hope are still to come?

[Elizabeth Truss]

After the right hon. Lady’s congratulations to me on securing this important deal, it is perhaps a bit churlish of me to point out that she did not vote for the original EU-Japan deal, so none of the original benefits she talked about would have come into existence had we followed the steer given by the Labour party at the time. The deal we have secured goes significantly beyond the EU-Japan deal in areas that are important to the United Kingdom. For example, the data and digital chapter in some cases goes beyond the CPTPP and sets new precedents for a high-quality deal. On business mobility, financial services, geographical indicators and rules of origin, there are advances in all parts of the negotiation that benefit all parts of the UK and all parts of business.

The right hon. Lady asked about the impact assessment. No doubt she has read the scoping study, which shows a £15 billion increase in trade under this deal, but of course we will conduct another impact assessment following the finalisation of the details of the deal, which we will indeed publish. It will also cover the deal’s environmental impact, social impact and impact on agriculture. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) asks when we will publish it. The answer is that we will do so when we have completed the full legal scrub of the documents and signed the agreement.

The right hon. Lady asked me about agriculture. I am pleased to hear that she shares my strong interest in improving exports of Great British products around the world. The vast majority of agricultural products such as beef and pork are not subject to tariff rate quotas, and we have secured the full liberalisation of those products under this agreement, which is a tremendous boost for British farmers. There is a limited number of areas where there are tariff rate quotas, and that represents about £1 million worth of business versus just over £150 million for the remainder of agriculture, but in those areas we have fought hard to ensure that British exporters continue to get the benefit of exports into the Japanese market at lower tariff rates, including but not limited to Stilton. We have also secured an agreement on malt barley, and we are the second largest exporter of malt into Japan, so that is a significant benefit for British farmers. We have also succeeded in getting more liberal rules of origin on many food and drink products, which will mean that more producers are able to export into Japan tariff-free.

As the right hon. Lady knows, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Parliament can refuse to ratify trade deals. Parliament has the power that other Parliaments have. If there is not a majority in this House for this trade deal, which I do not think will be true because it sounds like she has changed her mind since she voted against the Japan deal last time, it will simply not be ratified.

The right hon. Lady asked me all kinds of questions about the details of the agreement. Obviously, as we, first of all, share it with the International Trade Committee and then with Parliament, she will be able to see the details, but I assure her that the subsidies chapter is the standard kind of chapter you get in an FTA. It is vastly different from what the EU is trying to do with us, which is essentially impose the EU state aid regime in Britain. As David Frost has made clear, that is simply not acceptable.

The right hon. Lady tries to compare and contrast the EU and Japan. We can have both deals—we are global Britain. We want to have deals with CPTPP, with the United States, with the EU and with Canada, and I believe that that is absolutely possible. I am afraid to say that the right hon. Lady still seems to want to relitigate the EU referendum. In 2016, the people of Britain decided. It is time for her to get behind it.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on this heroic and historic new trade deal, and on proving the doubters wrong yet again. Under the EU-Japan deal, there were just seven geographical indicators. Under this new agreement, she has managed to potentially secure another 70, including west country lamb and west country beef. Can she outline how the new deal will benefit beef, lamb and dairy farmers in my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am looking forward to visiting Davidstow, which is one of the major cheese exporters from the United Kingdom, this Friday. The answer is that dairy products, such as cheddar from Davidstow, will go down to a zero tariff over time as a result of the agreement. We are protecting new product names, whether it is Cornish pasties or clotted cream. We will also see reductions in tariffs for fantastic products such as beef, also from Cornwall.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State. I recognise that, although this deal shares many similarities with the EU deal, it goes slightly further in a limited number of areas, not least the geographic indicators. It would be interesting, however, to find out just how many the UK pushed for as part of the EU deal. On the vexed issue of cheese, which is barely mentioned, surprisingly, it would appear from the reading today that all UK manufacturers can do is fulfil unused EU quotas. I welcome what she has said on data, and what has been described as the digital trade chapter is real progress; however, she will want to confirm that, even with that, if all goes according to plan in GDP terms this deal will be worth less than one tenth of 1% of UK GDP—barely denting the losses anticipated from Brexit.

The elephant in the room is the UK’s stated intention to breach international law and to break legally binding treaties. That is important because the Japan deal is primarily significant in paving the way for CPTPP accession. We know the attitude of the United States—that there will be no deal if the UK breaches international law—and the approach of many of our potential CPTPP partners is very similar. Australia, for example, has demonstrated consistent support for a far-reaching system of international law, and has made a valuable contribution towards realising that. It is a country committed to a rules-based international system. This is all about trust, so would it not have been better for winning the big prize of CPTPP accession if the Secretary of State had stood up and announced the withdrawal of the internal market Bill, rather than boasting about very small gains in this Japan deal?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Only the SNP could say that £15 billion of extra trade is insignificant, but this Japan deal is not just important economically in itself; it is important, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, for accession to TPP, a trade area worth £110 billion. That is vital. This is a step forward. One of the key things we have secured is strong agreement from the Japanese to help us accede to TPP.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is also pleased by the extra protection we have secured for Scotch whisky. There have been issues in Japan, and the Japanese Government have agreed to work with us and the industry on the development of enforcement mechanisms for lot codes on wines and spirits, meaning that Scotch whisky will be even better protected in the Japan market.

The hon. Gentleman talked about cheese. The vast majority of the cheese we export is not subject to quotas. Thanks to this deal, as I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), the tariffs on our cheese will go down to zero over time, which will be of huge benefit to Scottish cheddar producers.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving this agreement. Free trade, of course, is the key to prosperity for all our constituencies, and it is particularly important and valuable for mine, with the largest port in the country at Immingham. I particularly welcome the mention of the trans-Pacific agreement. Will she outline how she will continue with that agreement and move forward with agreements with countries such as Australia?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are the first potential accession country that has had a meeting with all 11 chief negotiators. We will now go into separate discussions with those countries to prepare our accession plans. I hope to be able to formally apply early next year so that we can make progress and accede to this high-standards agreement, which will give British exporters access to the fast-growing Pacific market.

[Mr Speaker]

We are now heading up to Scotland to Angus Brendan MacNeil, Chair of the Select Committee.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]]

Tapadh leibh; feasgar math, Mr Speaker. First, the Secretary of State made very welcome mention indeed of Stornoway black pudding. She then went on to say that she is delighted about the deal, described it as a major moment and said that she feels this UK-Japan FTA is ambitious. However, the GDP figures show it is worth a seventieth of the deal with the EU—a seventieth of the cost of Brexit—so is getting a deal with the EU not 70 times more important than this admittedly very welcome UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement? Will the Secretary of State also clarify whether any of this is dependent on EU co-operation or deals, especially on cumulation?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman’s welcoming the increased protection for Stornoway black pudding in the Japan market. He will note that a number of other indicators have been given access to that market, which is important. There are also, of course, huge benefits for Scottish lamb and beef farmers in terms of reduction in their tariffs.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the EU, this is not an either/or choice. Global Britain wants to have a good trading relationship with the EU and a good trading relationship with Japan and CPTPP. That is all possible, but what it will take is for the EU to give us a deal in the way that it has given Canada a deal.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]]

This deal is a great success story. A global—[Inaudible.] I chair the all-party parliamentary group on geographically protected foods. Will my right hon. Friend kindly set out the benefits for—[Inaudible.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

Once we have the fully legally scrubbed deal, that will go to the International Trade Committee on a confidential basis for that Committee to analyse it. We will also undertake independent analysis on the key points that I outlined earlier—the environmental impact, the social impact and the impact on animal welfare standards. That will then be debated by Parliament and, through the CRaG process, if Parliament is not happy, it will be able to not ratify the deal. I do not think that will be the eventuality, however, because I think people will recognise that the deal is of benefit to the UK economy.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

From what I have seen of the deal so far, it is a great deal and the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on securing it. Coming out of Brexit, it will do much. However, I note that the deal now goes to the Japanese Parliament, as has been said, for pre-signing approval, but not by law to this Parliament for pre-signing approval. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge—preferably in the Trade Bill, which is going through the other place—that, post Brexit, the UK needs a modern, relevant, fair and workable scrutiny regime for new FTAs and not just a return to the pre-EU, outdated 1924 Ponsonby rule, which is restricted to ratification?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I understand that the deal will go to both Parliaments at the same time—it will go to the Japanese Diet at the same time as it goes to the International Trade Committee in this House for its analysis. As I have said, under the CRaG process, which was introduced by the Labour Government in 2010, Parliament can block the deal if it does not like it, and that process is roughly equivalent to those in other Parliaments, including in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I note what the Secretary of State said about impact assessments, but what discussions has she had with the Office for Budget Responsibility about whether it will produce a forecast of the impact of the deal, specifically comparing it with WTO trading conditions and what would have happened if we had just rolled over the EU-Japan deal?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am committed to making sure that we have independently audited analysis of the deal that we complete, but the hon. Lady has highlighted a hypothetical situation. We are now in a world where we have left the EU, even though some Opposition Members do not seem to want to acknowledge that. What we have to talk about is the benefits of signing the deal versus not signing it.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and congratulate her on this agreement, which is really good news. Can she explain how small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of our British economy, will benefit from this excellent deal?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The deal with Japan has a dedicated SME chapter, which is all about reducing the red tape that SMEs face, making it easier for UK and Japanese SMEs to understand the others’ markets and providing information to make it easier for them to export and gain the benefits of international trade.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of her statement. Yes, we also welcome the trade deal, but I have two serious concerns. First, it seems to simply mirror what we have with the EU, and, apart from symbolic wins on things such as Stilton cheese, the Government have failed to leverage any real, meaningful benefits. Also, given that the deal has stricter state aid regulations than the disputed ones in the EU proposals, do the Government actually have a trade strategy?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I urge the hon. Lady to look beyond the EU—90% of global growth is coming from beyond the EU. Both Japan and the wider Pacific region, which is a fast-growing area, are vital for Britain’s future economy. Of course we want a deal with the EU, but that should not stop us doing advantageous deals with fast-growing parts of the world and working with allies to put forward the cause of free and fair trade.

[Mr Speaker]

To help Members, I advise them that I will run this session until 4.37 pm.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on this trade deal. Can she say a little more about how the south-east will benefit from this? It is not just financial services there. She will be aware that the increase in both exports and imports over recent years has been in road transport.

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have achieved improvements in areas such as transportation services as well as financial services in the trade deal. We have also improved professional and business mobility, making it easier for business people to travel between Japan and the United Kingdom and increasing our economic links. That will be particularly helpful for the south-east of England.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I of course congratulate the Secretary of State on any trade deal, but she has done a deal with Japan, which represents 2% of our trade, in a week when we have probably lost the 15.5% deal we might have had with the United States. On the day when a Japanese company, SoftBank, has sold off one of the jewels in the crown of British technology, is it not shameful that she could not bring herself to mention Arm from Cambridge? Will the people of this country not despair at her not mentioning that?

[Elizabeth Truss]

That was a typically upbeat question from the hon. Gentleman. It is not true that our deal with the United States is not progressing; on the contrary, we are in the middle of a very positive negotiating round in which we are currently discussing market access terms.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on securing this deal. I am delighted, as the people of Cornwall will be, that the iconic Cornish pasty and Cornish clotted cream are to be protected, along with many other geographically protected British products. Can she say what further opportunities there will be for Cornish producers to export to Japan as a result of this deal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right: a number of products in Cornwall—whether the Cornish pasty, west country farmhouse cheddar or clotted cream—will benefit from this deal through not only lower tariffs but increased recognition of their geographic indicators. I will be in Cornwall later this week, and I hope to talk to producers about how we can increase their exports and take advantage of these new opportunities.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I find it absurd that the House is being asked to debate a text that has not been published, because with trade deals, the devil is in the detail. I want to pick up on the point about state aid provisions, because I am curious about this. In today’s Financial Times, it is reported that the UK and Japan

“have agreed to replicate the restrictions on subsidies in the EU-Japan deal that went into effect last year.”

I was involved in that in Brussels, in a previous incarnation, and it goes far beyond what the UK is looking for in the UK-EU trade deal. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s response, and she said that it is a “standard” state aid clause, which strikes me as bizarre language, because there are no standard state aid clauses in any trade deals ever anywhere. Has she made the commitment reported in the Financial Times? Will she stand by it, will she resile from it in six months’ time in a limited way or has she dropped the ball?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I find it extraordinary, when I am appearing in front of the House to update it, for the hon. Gentleman to complain that I have not given the next update. I am here because, every stage that we agree with the Japanese, I want to share it with the House and have that debate. Of course there will be another debate when we have produced the final text, which he will be able to participate in. Many FTAs have subsidy clauses, but no FTA, apart from the one that the EU is demanding with the UK, has one bloc imposing its subsidy regime on another country.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

By now, the whole House will know of my love of the autonomous delivery robots in Milton Keynes. I am assured that they can deliver geographically protected goods such as Stilton and pork pies, but they are also part of the UK’s larger tech industry. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on how our tech businesses will be helped by the data and digital parts of the deal?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The deal will, in essence, underwrite digital and data flows between the UK and Japan, so there will be no requirements such as data localisation and we will uphold the principles of net neutrality and enable the free flow of data. It will mean that brilliant companies, such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, will be able to sell their products into Japan without hinderance.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Further to the question from the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), if the FT article is correct, the Government have, in this deal, signed up to more restrictive conditions on state aid than those being negotiated with the European Union. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the negotiations with the EU are all about deterring it from reaching a deal so that it will walk away, and we can then blame it for no deal and not take the hit that would otherwise be aimed at the Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am not quite clear what the hon. Gentleman’s question was—it seemed to be more of an accusation—but, as I have said, the subsidy clauses in the deal are standard FTA clauses. They are nothing like what the EU is demanding of us.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

Last year, 277 Welsh businesses exported to Japan. Does the Secretary of State agree that the new tariff reduction in beef represents an exciting opportunity for farmers such as Brian Bown, who is chairman of my local National Farmers Union and is at a cattle auction this afternoon, and Gerald Thomas, who is president of the Farmers’ Union of Wales?

[Elizabeth Truss]

British beef and lamb were let back into the Japanese market in 2019. In this deal, we have achieved significant tariff reductions on beef and more protection of geographic indicators such as Welsh lamb and, of course, Ynys Môn sea salt from my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this free trade agreement with Japan. Will she outline the benefits that she sees it bringing to the economy of north-east Wales?

[Elizabeth Truss]

There are huge benefits to the economy of north-east Wales, whether in digital and data, agriculture such as Welsh lamb, or areas such as manufacturing, where we have reduced the cost of bringing in car parts and agreed closer regulatory co-operation between Japan and the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

I put a line through him too soon—I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I would have thought it was impossible to put a line through me, but that is by the bye.

First, I thank the Secretary of State for all that she is doing. Her eagerness to get trade deals the world over is infectious and should encourage everyone in the House. It is an indication of the fact that the global market is anxious to get started with the UK as a trading partner.

I note that there are set to be strong tariff reductions for UK pork and beef exports, with low tariffs for food and drink, and more generous quotas for malt than in the EU-Japan deal. Will the Secretary of State confirm how that will translate for malt for my local whisky producer, Echlinville Distillery in Kircubbin, and for Bushmills whiskey as well? How will it translate for the Northern Ireland pork and beef industries, which provide the best pork and beef in the world—we have that in Northern Ireland and in my constituency? Can we expect an increase in the market for exports to Japan?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We absolutely can expect an increase. As I said, British beef has only just been allowed back into the Japanese market, and we are now going to see significant tariff reductions. Northern Ireland is, of course, a strong exporter of such products, and it will also benefit from the increased protection of geographic indicators, whether for the Armagh Bramley apple or the Lough Neagh eel.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State mentioned Nissan; of course, there is an intrinsic link from Nissan to UK steel, which is intrinsically linked into the talks with the United States. Will she guarantee that President Trump’s completely unrealistic and unreasonable section 232 tariffs on UK steel will be removed from the trade negotiations with the United States as a precondition for those negotiations to proceed?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are in active negotiations with the United States, and one of the things I have been very clear about is that we need to see those unfair section 232 tariffs on our steel removed.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

We are very excited in Grimsby about this trade deal, because we feel it will create a huge benefit for our family-owned fish processors, particularly those for flat fish, and for our fish smokehouses of Alfred Enderby. How will this help to improve fisheries?

[Elizabeth Truss]

There are two benefits for fisheries from this deal. First, we are going to see a reduction in tariffs on all kinds of fish, be it mackerel, cod or salmon. And my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that traditional Grimsby smoked fish is one of the geographical indicators we are going to replicating in Japan.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]]

How long will it be until the UK Government realise that this Japan deal is not as good as is being touted, and then U-turn and renege on it? Should my constituents take the Secretary of State’s word that they will not do so?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have already made significant progress, achieving agreement in principle; we are working on the legal scrubbing, and I will bringing this back to Parliament very soon.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and her ministerial team on securing this deal in such quick order. Wales has a long history of attracting inward investment from Japan, with the first foreign direct investment project from Sony coming to Bridgend back in 1973. However, will she guarantee that the finest lamb in the world—Welsh lamb—will have its geographical indicator protected, so that we can continue our deep trading relationship with Japan?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is right about the investment in both countries. This deal seeks to deepen that economic relationship, in services, in manufacturing and, of course, in agriculture. I am delighted to say that Welsh lamb is on the list of geographical indicators that should be recognised by Japan.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The north-east has benefited significantly from Japanese investment, so I welcome the continuation of existing trading relationships, which this deal largely represents. However, the Secretary of State will know that for Nissan and for investors more generally, and for jobs in the north-east, the deal that matters is the “oven-ready” one with the European Union. Will she set out precisely what the differences are between the state aid provisions in this Japanese deal and those rejected in the EU deal, apart from the fact that the latter are already in place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have recently visited Hitachi and Nissan, both of which are pleased with the progress we have made in the Japan deal. Of course, like all of us, they want a deal with the EU, but it has to be the right deal for Britain. My lesson, as Trade Secretary, is that we have to be prepared to hold out for the right deal.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

May I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend on securing such an important deal? I hope she goes on to secure future deals for Britain. May I also encourage her to ensure that this new opportunity is considered in the integrated review, because our economic security and our national security go hand in hand?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is right on that, and one important aspect of this deal and our relationship with Japan is that it is a leading free enterprise democracy. We need to be working with like-minded countries, not only to protect free trade across the world, but to make sure trade is fair. That is one of the huge benefits of joining CPTPP: it is a high standards trade agreement of countries that believe in free trade.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

May I welcome the progress that was made in relation to geographically protected indicators, a number of which come from the northern isles in relation to this deal? The Financial Times article, to which other Members have referred, does say that David Frost is concerned that the Secretary of State has given away more in relation to level-playing field issues than he is offering to the EU. If that is correct, then that is very serious indeed. Will she commit to publishing the state aid clauses now?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the new listing of Orkney beef, Orkney lamb and Orkney Scottish Islands cheddar, and I think we also have a Shetland geographical indicator—

[Mr Carmichael]

Shetland wool, which isn’t very tasty.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman denigrate foodstuffs from his own constituency. [Hon. Members: “Wool”!] I am sorry but I did not hear him. We are still in the legal scrubbing process with Japan —[Interruption.] That has nothing to do with wool. Once that process is finished, we will be sharing our text with the International Trade Committee, which will then fully analyse it.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend heartily and her chief trade negotiation adviser who, I think, led this particular negotiation if I recall correctly. I want to welcome the fact that the Government have agreed disciplines to avoid anti-competitive market distortions and subsidies in particular. Does she think that we could offer a similar regime to the EU in order to reassure it that we will be behaving fairly as an independent United Kingdom?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are very committed to behaving fairly in all our dealings, but, as I made clear earlier, what the EU is asking for is not a standard FTA clause, but for the EU state aid regime to be put into UK law, and that is not on.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Our total trade last year with Japan was worth £31 billion, which is hugely important, but to put it in perspective, our total trade last year with the Netherlands was three times that amount. Although we all welcome this deal, is the Secretary of State concerned that we have not yet secured our continued free trade with the Netherlands and the other 26 EU member states?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I do not think that £30 billion is to be sniffed at in terms of our trade with Japan. The hon. Lady must look to the future when what we will see is the vast majority of global growth coming from outside the EU. What we want is for the UK to be hitched to those growth opportunities, so that our businesses can expand. I do not see today as a maximum or a steady state. Of course we can do more in the future, but what these lower tariffs mean is that it will be easier and more economic for our businesses to export to Japan.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this fantastic deal, which demonstrates not just Britain’s place in Asia, but Britain’s place on the Asian and American continent as part of CPTPP. I am delighted that she is joining me and the Japanese Defence Minister in praising the CPTPP and encouraging Britain to play a more active part. Will she also, however, urge the Defence Secretary to bring the Japanese into the six eyes, as it will be then?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I will pass that call on to my colleague, the Defence Secretary. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the central importance of TPP, not just as a huge economic opportunity for the United Kingdom, but as a beacon of free trade and fair play that will be vital as we seek to reform the global trading system.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

Based on the British Government’s own best-case scenario figures, am I right in calculating that it will take 71 deals of this nature to make up for what will be lost by pursuing the British Government’s policy of leaving the EU single market and customs union?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Mr Speaker, I think some hon. Members have got the wrong title of today’s statement. They seem to think that it is about the EU referendum, which I believe happened three years ago.

[Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)]

Last year, 717 businesses across the west midlands benefited from exporting to Japan, so does my right hon. Friend believe that places such as Birmingham will benefit from this £15 billion boost, which will help create jobs and economic advantages for local people, despite the many protests of the doomsters, gloomsters and doubters opposite, who said it would never happen?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We were previously being told that we would not get a deal with Japan, or we would not get a better deal than the EU had got with Japan. Well, that has been shown to be wrong, and the people who are going to benefit are the people of the midlands and around the country, who are going to see their goods able to be exported to Japan at a lower price, which means more jobs and more opportunities.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Free global trade is a good thing, but it does pose challenges under our climate change obligations. The Secretary of State has committed to an impact assessment. Will she also commit to have a chapter in there on the climate impacts and what we are doing to mitigate them to the lowest level possible?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are very strong climate change commitments in our agreement with Japan.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

May I echo the sentiments on this side of the House and offer my own personal congratulations to the Secretary of State on a great deal? Can my right hon. Friend provide greater detail on how this deal will make it easier for business people to move between the UK and Japan?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I certainly can. This deal goes beyond the deal the EU had agreed both in terms of UK business people being able to go to Japan and Japanese business people being able to come here. That is vitally important for industries such as financial services and professional services—for example, the increased ability to bring families with people on business visits—and there are wider rules about what type of professions qualify. Overall, this will see an increase in the exchange of professional people between both countries.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

We have already heard from many colleagues about the limitations of scrutiny within this House of this trade deal, but can the Secretary of State tell us what role there will be for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government in having any input into the deal?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have been very closely involving the Scottish Government in all our work. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Trade Minister spoke to his Scottish counterpart early today.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, it is in fact in the Derbyshire Dales that the best Stilton in the UK is made, with Hartington Blue, Dovedale Blue and other great cheeses such as Peakland White. Can my right hon. Friend further elucidate how this agreement will benefit my Stilton producers and other great cheese producers across the UK?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend certainly has a wide array of excellent Stiltons in her constituency. What we have done through this agreement is protect our access to low tariffs for Stilton, and gained a commitment from the Japanese to even wider access when we accede to CPTPP. Overall, for all types of cheese, we are seeing tariffs coming down, which will mean more of our great British product going into the Japanese market.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Of course, I welcome this because, as Asda would say, “Every little helps”—[Hon. Members: “That’s Tesco!”] Oh, is it? It is Morrisons in Porth in the Rhondda. But I am worried about Welsh lamb. There is a serious issue here, which is that 92.5% of Welsh lamb exports go to the EU, and even at the best estimates of what the Government are hoping for, only 3% will go to Japan, so if we end up with tariffs of 38% on the 92.5%, we will have killed the Welsh lamb industry. Will the Secretary of State really put all the energy she possibly can into getting a good deal for Welsh lamb with the EU as well as with Japan?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Of course, Lord Frost is negotiating the EU deal, and I know that one of his key areas is making sure we get good access for our agricultural products to the EU market. However, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that of course the US is the second largest importer of lamb in the world, so I hope for his strong support for a US deal as well as for our deal with Japan.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this deal. May I ask her what work she is undertaking with local stakeholders, particularly in the Black Country, so that my businesses in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton can truly take advantage of the opportunities presented by the deal?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I know that the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), recently had a webinar with businesses from the Black Country, but of course as we approach 1 January, we want to encourage more businesses to get involved in this exciting trade with Japan. It is a huge market, the British brand is very appreciated there and it is also a gateway to the wider Pacific region.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Margaret Thatcher got Japanese car companies to come to Britain as a platform to export into the single market. As a result of this Japanese deal, along with the Secretary of State’s expected EU deal, will there be more or fewer Japanese cars being exported from Britain into the EU?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am very pleased to hear the hon. Member’s tribute to our great Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher. That is a first from him, and I hope it is the first of many. The answer is that we want a successful British car industry, and car companies such as Nissan are supportive of this deal because it brings extra benefits to the UK.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an excellent deal for the United Kingdom, that it offers great possibilities for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that it is just another reason why we are better off together as a Union?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This deal has benefits and opportunities for all of the UK. It is a central part of levelling up our country, ensuring that every region and nation has those opportunities and gets jobs and growth into its local areas.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow for the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elizabeth Truss Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to engage with businesses as part of free trade agreement negotiations.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

This Government are committed to engaging business and farmers in our trade negotiations. Last Wednesday, I announced the creation of 11 new trade advisory groups to ensure that trade deals benefit the whole UK, from agriculture to the car industry.

[Dr Wallis]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. In my Bridgend constituency, the Ford factory is imminently to close and we hear that we may not be getting a much hoped for investment from Ineos, so our local economy is more dependent on small and medium-sized enterprises than ever before. What steps is her Department taking to engage with SMEs in particular to find out what they need as we negotiate free trade agreements with the rest of the world?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have engaged with SMEs directly, and we are also working through organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce. What we are committed to is negotiating dedicated SME chapters in our trade agreements with the US, Australia, New Zealand and Japan to give our fantastic small businesses greater access to those markets.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) [V]]

I am sorry not to be able to be in the Chamber in person. I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State is listening to British business, and I hope that she will listen to the millions of British workers and consumers who have an equal right to be heard when it comes to trade. With that in mind, may I ask her a simple, factual question: of the 162 individuals that she announced last week will be members of her new trade advisory groups, will she tell us how many of them represent trade unions, consumer groups or non-governmental organisations?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The right hon. Lady will be very pleased to hear that we will shortly be announcing new groups—the strategic trade advisory group, as well as groups consulting civil society and the trade unions—and that is the way that we will engage those organisations in our trade negotiations. I have already had meetings with environmental groups and with trade unions, and I am committed to continuing to do that.

[Emily Thornberry]

The question really is: why do those groups really not merit being part of the trade advisory group, because of the 162 advisers that she has appointed, there is not a single person from a union, a consumer group or an NGO. Perhaps more important than anything else is that also excluded from the Secretary of State’s new advisory groups is the CBI, which previously sat on a group advising Ministers on continuity of trade for UK firms post Brexit—a group that has met nine times in the past year alone. Will the Secretary of State tell us why the CBI has been totally excluded, and why has the advisory group on continuity after Brexit now been totally disbanded?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are reformulating the new strategic advisory group, which will contain some large business representative organisations alongside civil society groups, and we will be announcing that in due course. None the less, there is a difference between the detailed consultation that we need to undergo on the specifics of trade negotiation—for example, rules of origin for specific industries—and then the broader strategic advice on our trade policy. It is right that we are consulting the trade unions, the environmental groups and organisations such as the CBI on that broader strategy as well, and we will be announcing that in due course. The hon. Lady will not have to wait much longer.

[James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to engage with the food and farming sector as part of free trade agreement negotiations.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

We have established an agrifood trade advisory group to ensure that farmers and food producers are involved in the details of our negotiations. We have also launched the Trade and Agriculture Commission to advise and inform on agriculture, trade policies and export opportunities for UK farmers.

[James Grundy]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that, contrary to persistent rumours in the media, chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef will not be on our supermarket shelves post Brexit?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can confirm that, as part of the EU withdrawal Act, the ban in place on chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef remains after we leave the transition period on 1 January 2021.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Chairman of the Select Committee, Mr Speaker.

We are either facing a hard Brexit or a no-deal Brexit and, as a result, food and farming have taken on really great importance. It is an issue that has caused near meltdown for the new and already failing Tory leaders in Scotland, with the National Farmers Union, Scotland, giving them the yellow card for being misleading and leaving farmers fuming. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to ease farmers’ anger and consumers’ anxiety and state categorically that there will be no changing of food standards or any compromise whatsoever in any trade deal on the high standards of the food that now goes on our supermarket shelves?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and I point out that NFU Scotland sits as part of our Trade and Agriculture Commission, looking at future trade policy.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

NFU Scotland is not just fuming: it is telling us that that the leader of the Scottish Conservatives is misrepresenting its position. The reality is that the Scottish NFU is clear in its view that it wants the Trade Bill amended to ban food imports not produced to UK standards. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she is at least listening to NFU Scotland, even if she does not agree with it, and will she tell the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) to give a true account of the NFU’s views?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) is a huge champion of Scottish farming and the Scotch whisky industry, and I am working extremely closely with him. I am also working very closely with NFU Scotland, and it is involved in the Trade and Agriculture Commission. The fundamental principle of our trade policy is that we will not allow our fantastic farmers, whether in Scotland, Wales, Wales or Northern Ireland, and their great produce to be undermined. What we want them to be doing is exporting more around the world.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

During the passage of the Trade Bill, farmers via the NFU and others, including doctors via the British Medical Association, expressed deep concerns that food standards in future trade deals could be under threat, allowing in, for example, vegetables from the US, where 72 chemicals are allowed that are currently banned in the UK. Given that the Government refused to legislate in the Trade Bill to stop the lowering of standards, how will the Secretary of State respond in her engagement with farmers to ensure that that will not happen in future?

[Elizabeth Truss]

In the EU withdrawal Act, all the import standards that we had as part of the EU have been transposed into UK law. Those import standards remain, and we will not be negotiating them away in any trade agreement. Furthermore, we have the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which is specifically involving organisations such as NFU Scotland, to ensure that British farmers get a fair deal and British consumers have products that they can have confidence in.

[Stewart Hosie]

All that answer confirms is that there are no legislative protections in the Trade Bill and that MPs will have no say in any future trade deal except for potentially a “take it or leave it” choice after the negotiations are concluded. Given that Which? tells us that 95% of the public want to maintain current food standards, why do this Government continue to rule out real legislative protections in a trade Bill that would accord with the views of our farmers, our doctors and the general public?

[Elizabeth Truss]

These standards, such as the ban on chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, are already in UK law as part of the EU withdrawal Act. I have been explicit: it is not a matter for trade policy; it is a matter for our domestic law what standards we have in this country, and we are not trading it away, so it should not be part of any trade Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) speaks from a sedentary position. I do not think that it is the Government’s job to legislate twice for things that are already in legislation.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]]

The standards governing infant formula in the UK are far higher than those in the US. Will the Secretary of State take steps to protect our youngest citizens from the additional sugars and colourants permitted in the United States but banned here?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Any product that is sold in the UK has to be subject to the rules of the UK. Those standards are set by Food Standards Scotland and the Food Standards Agency in England and Wales, and those rules will not be changed as part of any trade deal with anyone, whether the US, Australia, New Zealand or Japan.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to support UK exporters to help the economy recover from the covid-19 pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

What recent steps she has taken to reduce tariffs on UK exports.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

We have been pushing hard to remove tariffs in all our trade agreements in order to benefit UK consumers and business, whether the 28% tariff on dinner plates to the US, Japanese tariffs on footwear or the 8% tariff on Tim Tams with Australia.

[Dr Mullan]

I am proud to say that since 1962 Crewe has been home to Whitby Morrison, a family-owned ice cream van manufacturer recognised as a world leader. It exports its vans to more than 60 countries worldwide, but it still faces considerable trade barriers. Will the Secretary of State assure me that in trade talks with Japan, the US, Australia and other countries, ice cream vans are on the list so that we can back this great British export?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his championing of this fantastic ice cream van business. Such vans are indeed a great export and currently face tariffs of up to 5% with some of our negotiating partners. We will certainly be looking at removing those tariffs as well as other tariffs as part of the trade deals we are looking to strike.

[Jacob Young]

The proposed UK global tariffs stand to negatively affect polyethylene terephthalate resin manufacturing in Teesside, which delivers more than 70% of the UK’s PET packaging for critical applications such as food and pharmaceuticals as well as personal protective equipment. The survival of Alpek, the UK’s only producer of PET, is threatened by most favoured nation tariffs on its two main raw materials, despite the fact that there is no domestic production of them. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Alpek in my constituency to hear of the effect those tariffs could have and consider a different direction?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Last week, I visited a number of manufacturing businesses in the north-east, which is a manufacturing powerhouse. My hon. Friend is a huge champion of the industry in his area in Teesside, from chemicals to steel. I would be delighted to meet him and the company to see what can be done to help address its issues.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to help businesses increase exports to non-EU countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

We are making good progress on negotiations with the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and on accession to the CPTPP. We are also intensifying our negotiations with Australia. We want a gold standard deal that pushes new frontiers in trade and advances British interests in vital areas such as financial services, telecoms, tech, and food and drink. We want to work with like-minded friends and allies who believe in free trade and fair play.

[Mrs Murray]

Cornwall prides itself on its excellent food and drink produce. Will my right hon. Friend please promote this fantastic Cornish and British produce during her trade negotiations around the world?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right. Cornwall is renowned for its fantastic food from clotted cream to the Cornish pasty. I am going to be in Cornwall in a couple of weeks’ time, visiting the Saputo creamery, which exports Cathedral City to the United States—there is currently a 26% tariff on that cheese, which I am seeking to get removed—and I would be delighted to visit her in her constituency and see some of her great food businesses as well.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Yesterday, I met Beam Suntory and the Scotch Whisky Association to hear about the crippling impact that tariffs are having on the Scotch Malt Whisky Society. The Secretary of State said in her article in The Daily Telegraph:“The Government is stepping up talks with the US to try and break the impasse, and will be entering into further discussions with her opposite number”. Can she give us an update on how that is going and, more importantly, tell us when we are going to call time on tariffs?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have made some progress in that we have stopped new tariffs being imposed on blended whisky. We have also got the tariffs removed on shortbread, such as Walkers, which has helped protect 250 jobs. However, the reality is that the EU has been responsible for negotiating the Airbus retaliatory tariffs; it has failed to do so, and that is why I have entered direct talks with the United States. I will be having more talks in the coming months to get these unfair, unjust tariffs removed on single malt whisky.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

During the lockdown and local restrictions, my constituents have really embraced shopping local and really supporting quality local food and drink products. What reassurances can the Minister please give me and my constituents that, while we do these trade deals, we really will not compromise our high food standards and our animal welfare standards?

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was recently in Israel talking about our close relationship with that important ally.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Would the Secretary of State even dream of doing a trade deal without the support of the House?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; I would always seek the support not only of the House but of people across the United Kingdom, because we want every single trade deal we sign to benefit our businesses, our consumers and our country. However, if some doubtful people on the Opposition Benches do not believe me, there is protection, because under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 system any trade deal can be blocked by this House. Of course, I would never consider putting forward a trade deal that would not command the support of the House, but there is always that protection for those doubting Thomases on the Opposition Benches.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Will the Secretary of State get off the platform? We want to get through the list.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]]

The Minister said that he welcomed the Government’s appointment of Tony Abbott as a trade adviser, but on Sky this morning, Kay Burley reminded the Health Secretary that the appointee is a misogynist and homo- phobe, which the International Trade Secretary’s colleague appeared to confirm by saying, “But he’s also an expert on trade.” Could the International Trade Secretary not find an expert for the role who demonstrates positive British values and, by the way, is not a climate change denier?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I think it is absolute hypocrisy to hear that type of argument from the Labour party. Until recently, they had a shadow Chancellor, whom the hon. Lady supported, who called for the lynching of one of my female colleagues and never apologised. Labour has never elected a female leader, despite having the opportunity time and again. The reality is that they would rather virtue-signal and indulge in tokenism than take real action to improve the lives of women.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we ought to remember that we are dealing with international trade questions. That goes for Members on both sides of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Environmental protections do work in bilateral trade agreements, but they work best when the process is genuinely internationalised. Will Ministers tell the House and the country what steps are being taken in the preparations for COP26 to make sure that international trade with strong environmental protections is a major item, to ensure that we can save the planet?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. As we take up our independent seat at the World Trade Organisation we intend, alongside pushing our agenda on technology and services, to work with like-minded partners on the environment to get strong environmental agreement alongside our work on COP26.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

In my constituency of West Dorset, 97% of businesses are small or micro-sized. Will the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to make sure that those small and micro-sized businesses will benefit from the many trade deals we are going to sign?

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The appointment of the sexist and homophobic Tony Abbott is also the appointment of a climate change denier. Does that indicate that the Government are moving away from any commitment in trade deals to maintaining environmental protection? If not, why have they put him in the job?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The reality is that those on the left of politics are always intolerant of anyone who does not agree with them but are prepared to defend anything from their own friends, such as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). When is the hon. Gentleman going to condemn the right hon. Gentleman’s call to lynch one of my female colleagues?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have to remember that we actually answer questions, rather than keep asking them.

I call Matt Vickers. Not here.

[Elizabeth Truss]

The answer is that I am in direct talks with the US about dealing with this issue, following the failure of the EU, which the hon. Lady wants to rejoin, to do anything about it for 15 years.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Neonicotinoids are banned in the UK as seed dressing for sugar beet growers or for oilseed rape, but they are allowed in other countries, including some in the EU, putting their producers at a natural advantage over our producers. Will advantages of that kind be eliminated in a future free trade agreement?

[Elizabeth Truss]

All our decisions about pesticides are of course made in line with the best available science, but I assure my hon. Friend that our agri-food trade advisory group will absolutely look to make sure that our farmers are not disadvantaged in trade negotiations.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Front Line Defenders published a report in 2019 that detailed the firings, torture and trials in military courts of trade unionists and workers who organised strikes in Egypt. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will not sign a trade deal with the Egyptian Government unless they agree to respect the right to form unions and the right to take industrial action?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a point of order; it is a clarification. I am happy to leave it there unless the Secretary of State wishes to respond.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

I think the hon. Gentleman is getting confused between the number of deals and the amount of trade that they cover. We have covered over 70% of the continuity trade, but some of those countries are smaller than others and have smaller amounts of trade.

[Mr Speaker]

I think you have both put those things on the record for today, and we will end questions with that. In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Future Trading Relationship with Australia: Update on Negotiations

Elizabeth Truss Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

Trade negotiators from the UK and Australia held the first round of negotiations for a UK-Australia free trade agreement (FTA) between 29 June and 10 July 2020.

We are now one step closer to an ambitious, wide-ranging free trade agreement with one of our oldest friends. An FTA with Australia can bring investment, better jobs, higher wages and lower prices just when we need them the most.

Both teams of negotiators recognised the unprecedented circumstances we find ourselves in and reiterated that more global trade is essential to support post-covid economic recovery.

Negotiations were conducted virtually and covered discussions on all areas of a comprehensive trade agreement.

The discussions covered the following areas:

Anti-corruption and transparency

Competition

Cross-cutting general provisions

Customs

Digital/e-commerce

Environment

Financial services

Trade in goods and trade remedies

Good regulatory practice

Intellectual property

Investment

Labour

Procurement

Rules of origin

Services, including movement of natural persons and professional business services

Small and medium-sized enterprises

State owned enterprises

Sanitary and phytosanitary measures

State to state dispute settlement

Technical barriers to trade

Telecommunications

We also had positive exploratory discussions on clean growth, development, women’s economic empowerment, and innovation.

Discussions between negotiators were productive and reflected our shared ambition to secure a comprehensive deal to boost trade and investment between our like-minded economies.

Teams discussed their respective objectives and agreed a forward plan for future talks. Our positive discussions in round one have laid the groundwork for the UK and Australia to achieve high-quality outcomes across the agreement.

The UK and Australia are aligned in many areas which will enable us to make quick progress across many chapters. In discussions, both countries emphasised a desire to be particularly ambitious in areas including services, digital trade and in supporting small and medium-sized enterprises to benefit from the opportunities that increased trade provide.

The Government are committed to negotiating a comprehensive agreement with Australia and we look forward to making further progress. We will explore the option of face-to-face negotiations when it is safe to do so. The Government will make their next statement on progress following the second round of talks, currently planned for September.

[HCWS361]

Export Licences: Saudi Arabia

Elizabeth Truss Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

I want to update the House on the steps that have been taken to comply with the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 20 June 2019 regarding licences for military exports to Saudi Arabia for possible use in the conflict in Yemen.



The legal proceedings concerned the decisions of the then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills of 9 December 2015:



Not to suspend extant export licences for the sale or transfer of arms and military equipment to Saudi Arabia for possible use in the conflict in Yemen; and

To continue to grant further such licences.

The legal proceedings concerned Criterion 2c of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria—which requires the Government to assess Saudi Arabia’s attitude towards relevant principles of international law and provides that the Government will not grant a licence if there is a clear risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law (IHL).



The Divisional Court found in favour of the Government in its judgment of July 2017, noting that we applied a rigorous and robust, multi-layered process of analysis to making our licensing decisions. Our approach has focused on a predictive evaluation of risk as to the attitude and future conduct of the Saudi-led coalition, recognising the inherent difficulties of seeking to reach findings on IHL for specific incidents where we do not have access to complete information. Even so, this analysis has always incorporated a detailed and careful review of past allegations of incidents of concern. This included analysis, to the extent possible, of whether there were patterns of concern, in particular arising from trends in the number of allegations of civilian casualties and of damage to key civilian infrastructure. The Court of Appeal broadly endorsed this decision-making process.



The principal issue in the Court of Appeal was whether this analysis needed to go further. In the Court’s judgment, the question of whether there was an historic pattern of breaches of IHL was a question which required to be faced. Even if it could not be answered with reasonable confidence for every incident, at least the attempt had to be made. It was because we had not reached findings on whether specific incidents constituted breaches of IHL as part of our assessment of clear risk, under Criterion 2c, that the Court of Appeal concluded that our decision-making process was irrational and therefore unlawful.



To address the Court of Appeal’s judgment, we have developed a revised methodology in respect of all allegations which it is assessed are likely to have occurred and to have been caused by fixed-wing aircraft, reflecting the factual circumstances that the court proceedings concerned. Each of those allegations has been subject to detailed analysis by reference to the relevant principles of IHL and in the light of all the information and intelligence available. An evaluation has then been made, in respect of each incident, whether it is possible that it constitutes a breach of IHL or whether it is unlikely that it represents a breach. For a number of incidents, as envisaged by the Court of Appeal, there is insufficient information to make this evaluation. Where an incident is assessed as being a “possible” breach, it is regarded—for the purposes of the Criterion 2c analysis—as if it were a breach of IHL. By setting the threshold as “possible” the IHL analysis has captured the widest range of relevant potential IHL breaches, to provide a base from which to assess the prospective risk for Criterion 2c.



The IHL analysis has now been applied to all credible incidents of concern of which we are aware. Some of these incidents have been assessed as “possible” violations of IHL. These have therefore been factored into the overall Criterion 2c analysis on the basis that they are violations of IHL.



We have sought to determine whether these “violations” are indicative of:



any patterns of non-compliance;

a lack of commitment on the part of Saudi Arabia to comply with IHL; and or

a lack of capacity or systemic weaknesses which might give rise to a clear risk of IHL breaches.



We have similarly looked for patterns and trends across the incidents which have been assessed as being unlikely to be breaches of IHL and those for which there is insufficient information to make an assessment.



This analysis has not revealed any such patterns, trends or systemic weaknesses. It is noted, in particular, that the incidents which have been assessed to be possible violations of IHL occurred at different times, in different circumstances and for different reasons. The conclusion is that these are isolated incidents.



I want to emphasise that the IHL analysis is just one part of the Criterion 2c assessment. In retaking these decisions, I have taken into account the full range of information available to the Government. In the light of all that information and analysis, I have concluded that, notwithstanding the isolated incidents which have been factored into the analysis as historic violations of IHL, Saudi Arabia has a genuine intent and the capacity to comply with IHL.



On that basis, I have assessed that there is not a clear risk that the export of arms and military equipment to Saudi Arabia might be used in the commission of a serious violation of IHL.



Having now re-taken the decisions that were the subject of judicial review on the correct legal basis, as required by the Order of the Court of Appeal of 20 June, it follows that the undertaking that my predecessor gave to the Court—that we would not grant any new licences for the export of arms or military equipment to Saudi Arabia for possible use in Yemen—falls away. The broader commitment that was given to Parliament, relating to licences for Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners, also no longer applies.



The Government will now begin the process of clearing the backlog of licence applications for Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners that has built up since 20 June last year. Each application will, of course, be carefully assessed against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria and a licence would not be granted if to do so would be a breach of the Criteria. It may take some months to clear this backlog.



Finally, as indicated in the statement made to the House on 20 June 2019, we sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal’s judgment. Permission was granted by the Court of Appeal on 9 July 2019. In light of the revised methodology which I have just described, I will now be taking steps to withdraw this appeal. I want to update the House on the steps that have been taken to comply with the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 20 June 2019 regarding licences for military exports to Saudi Arabia for possible use in the conflict in Yemen.

[HCWS339]

Negotiations on the UK's Future Relationship with the US: Update

Elizabeth Truss Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

The second UK-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiating round took place from 15-26 June 2020.



Talks continued to be positive and constructive, with progress being made towards a comprehensive agreement. Discussions spanned the majority of areas covered by the FTA, with further sessions coming over the next two weeks on the remaining major policy areas. This follows almost 20 intersessional meetings held in between rounds one and two.



The Government are clear there is no set deadline for this agreement. Quality is more important than speed. Any deal the Government strikes must be fair, reciprocal and ultimately in the best interests of the British people and the economy. Furthermore, the Government remain clear on protecting the NHS and not compromising on the UK’s high environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards.



During the round, talks advanced across a number of chapters and teams are now into detailed discussions on text.



There was good progress on a dedicated SME (Small and Medium Enterprises) chapter. This included agreement that the next formal UK-US SME dialogue will be held in Boston in October 2020.



UK negotiators also underlined the importance of high ambition on services, with financial services particularly vital to any final agreement.



On professional business services, both sides agreed to go further than existing precedent and agree provisions that reflect the strength of the UK-US relationship. This included a discussion on how best to support regulators pursue closer collaboration on the recognition of qualifications and licencing.



There was also discussion of specific proposals that might benefit the legal services sector.



More work needs to be done and both sides committed in the round to a full programme of engagement ahead of round three. Talks scheduled over the coming weeks include rules of origin, market access, digital, telecoms, intellectual property and business mobility.



The third negotiating round is expected to take place at the end of July.



Below is a summary list of those areas discussed in the round, which continued to take place through video conferencing:



General co-ordination

Trade remedies

Services sectors—professional business services

Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)

Services sectors—transport

Anti-corruption

Competition

Cross cutting services

Financial services

Good regulatory practice (GRP)

Customs and trade facilitation

Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)

Investment

Legal group—core text

Sectoral annexes

Environment

State owned enterprises

Technical barriers to trade

Other issues—including innovation and women’s economic empowerment

Economics

[HCWS324]

International Trade

Elizabeth Truss Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the statement made by the Secretary of State for International Trade on 17 June 2020.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

…The foundations for both deals are strong. We already have close ties in areas such as cars, steel, services, and food and drink, and 31,000 small businesses export to Australia.

[Official Report, 17 June 2020, Vol. 677, c. 826.]

Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss):

An error has been identified in the statement I made to the House on 17 June 2020.

The correct statement should have been:

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

…The foundations for both deals are strong. We already have close ties in areas such as cars, steel, services, and food and drink, and 13,400 small businesses export to Australia.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elizabeth Truss Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

What recent discussions she has had with her Canadian counterpart on a free trade agreement with that country.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

I spoke to my Canadian counterpart Mary Ng last week, and we talked about progressing our bilateral trade and working together to promote free trade across the world.

[Andrew Percy]

Bilateral trade between the UK and Canada is worth £20 billion a year. It grew exponentially following the implementation of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. In comparison, our bilateral trade with New Zealand is worth £3 billion a year. We have opened formal negotiations with New Zealand on a new trade agreement. Can we not go further with Canada and seek something much more comprehensive than simply a roll-over of CETA?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I know that my hon. Friend is committed to Canada, having served as trade envoy and done a fantastic job. As part of our ambitious free trade agreement programme, we announced yesterday our intention to accede to the CPTPP, which is an advanced trade agreement covering chapters such as data and digital and goes far beyond what the EU has been willing to agree. Canada is one of the key players in the CPTPP, alongside countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

What discussions she has had with UK trade partners on maintaining environmental protection standards in future free trade agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Scottish Land and Estates has said that food and farming is critical, and it is concerned that UK producers are not placed in an impossible situation where they have to compete in an effective “race to the bottom”. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give that cheaply produced agrifood imports will not lead to that race to the bottom?

[Elizabeth Truss]

First, we have the independent Food Standards Agency, which is committed to high food standards. All the food standards that are currently with us through EU law are put into UK law as a result of the withdrawal agreement, so those standards are not going to be lowered, and they are not going to be negotiated as part of any trade agreement.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, but I did not ask about food quality standards; I understand that. I am asking about production standards. As the National Farmers Union of Scotland has pointed out, there is deep concern about the importation of agrifoods into the UK that may be produced to an inequivalent and uncompetitive standard. How will she guard against agrifood imports produced to that inequivalent standard, which is much cheaper and simply could not or would not be done in the UK?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Scottish beef and lamb is a very high-quality product and highly competitive. When the beef ban is ended with the US, we will have the opportunity to get British beef into the US market—there is £66 million-worth of opportunity for that product—but in every trade agreement I negotiate, I will always make sure that our farmers, with their high standards, are not undermined.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Food standards were not a matter for the Agriculture Bill—at least that is what MPs, including Conservative Back Benchers, were told on Report. They were told that they would be included in the Trade Bill. I am sure agriculture Ministers were telling the truth, so will the Government accept Labour’s amendment to the Trade Bill to enshrine in law the principle that food imported under any free trade agreement must maintain our farming industry’s high production and safety standards?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The reason they were not part of the Agriculture Bill is that the import standards that we already have and which already ensure that we import only high-quality products into this country are being transported into UK law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That is already there. There has been a lot of scaremongering going around about these lowered standards. That is simply not true. We are maintaining exactly the standards we have, which are in place, for example, through agreements with Canada.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]]

Tapadh leibh, Mr Speaker. We hope to see the Secretary of State at the International Trade Committee next week, as requested by Committee members for a number of weeks. At yesterday’s Committee hearing, the NFU, the CBI and the TUC all coalesced around the figure that Brexit would cost the UK about 4.9% of GDP and an American trade deal would benefit it by around 0.16% of GDP—a thirtieth of what is being lost by Brexit. They said that gains from the Japan deal would be a lot less than the paltry lot from the US deal, so can any Minister furnish the House with the figure for what would be gained as a percentage of GDP from a Japan-UK trade deal?

[Elizabeth Truss]

First of all, I am extremely happy to appear in front of the hon. Gentleman’s Committee, and I will ask my office to immediately set that up in the diary. I am very keen to communicate with the Committee about the various trade deals we are negotiating.

We published figures for the scoping study on the Japan free trade agreement, but this is not an either/or. We want to get a good trade deal with the EU. We want to get a good trade deal with the US. We also want to get access to CPTPP, which is a very fast-growing part of the world. That is what we want. We want global Britain to sit at the heart of a network of free trade agreements.

[Bill Esterson]

In March, the Government said that Japan must show “increased ambition” and set a higher headline target on reducing carbon emissions ahead of COP26. Is that still the view of the Secretary of State? Will she show increased ambition and include more stretching, measurable and binding climate targets in the new free trade agreement she puts in place with Japan?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have a huge opportunity to achieve our environmental objectives in many of the free trade agreements we are negotiating. For example, with New Zealand, which is a leader in this area, we will be looking for very advanced environmental clauses, and of course we will seek those in negotiations with Japan. But the hon. Gentleman should understand that there are a number of routes through which we are pursuing our objectives, namely our leadership of the COP26 summit, and it is right that that process should be the primary focus of where we achieve our climate change objectives.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

What assessment she has made of the potential effect of future free trade agreements on the economy in Cornwall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

What steps she is taking to ensure that UK farmers are able to sell their products into global markets under future free trade agreements.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

We are determined to remove barriers so that more of our fantastic British produce can be sold internationally. We have now become a net dairy exporter for the first time in recent years. A US-UK FTA can reduce tariffs of, for example, 26% on beef and more than 25% on some dairy products.

[Dr Evans [V]]

Some of my constituents in Bosworth have written to me concerned about food standards. What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with DEFRA regarding the Food Standards Agency to guarantee that the agency is fully supported to ensure and enforce that our food standards are up to scratch in our new trade deals as they come to fruition?

[Elizabeth Truss]

It is very important to note that we are not going to be lowering our food standards in any of our trade negotiations. British food standards—or certainly those in England and Wales—are a matter for the Food Standards Agency, and it is down to the agency to ensure that standards are upheld. Those standards are also in UK law, transferred as part of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, so they are guaranteed, and the Food Standards Agency is an independent body designed to ensure that they are upheld.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to ensure that all parts of the UK benefit from future free trade agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

What recent progress she has made on negotiating free trade agreements with (a) the US and (b) Japan.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

We have launched negotiations with both the US and Japan. We want to secure ambitious trade deals that benefit every part of the United Kingdom. Scotland is expected to be a particularly strong beneficiary from those deals.

[Patricia Gibson]

Despite what the Secretary of State said in response to previous questions, there are persistent concerns about the lifting of the ban on pathogen reduction treatments, which would permit chlorine washes over food as part of future trade deals. That would be bad for us and bad for animal welfare. To address those concerns once and for all, will the Secretary of State commit to enshrining minimum food standards into law? If she will not, will she devolve the necessary powers to Scotland to allow us to do it for ourselves?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I would point out that Scotland has its own food standards agency, which is responsible for upholding food standards in Scotland. I would also point out that the standards already are in the law and will continue to be in the law.

[Dave Doogan [V]]

Given what the Secretary of State—[Inaudible.]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

What progress she has made on negotiations for a free trade agreement with the US.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

We have just commenced round 2 of trade negotiations with the United States. Talks so far have been positive and constructive, but I am absolutely clear that we will only sign up for a deal that benefits all parts of the UK and all sectors of the UK.

[Kerry McCarthy]

In the absence of any final agreement between Britain and the EU on trading arrangements beyond the end of this year, is it not impossible for the UK and the US to have a meaningful discussion about the extent to which the UK’s regulatory framework can diverge from the EU’s in any future trade deal? Does that not mean that the chances of actually getting a deal with the US done and through Congress before the November election are virtually nil?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Let me be absolutely clear that we have not set a timetable for completion of the negotiations with the United States, because we are concentrating on getting a good deal rather than meeting any particular negotiation timetable. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is absolutely wrong with respect to the EU, because we have been clear that we are not aligned with EU regulations. We have our own independent regulatory regime and we are negotiating with all our trading partners, whether it is the US, Australia, New Zealand or Japan, on that basis.

[James Murray [V]]

The Government have repeatedly promised this House and the British public that they are committed to non-regression on food standards. However, there is great concern over a number of practices in the US that are currently banned in the UK, such as the widespread use of antibiotics to increase growth in animals. As the Government approach their negotiations on a trade deal with the US, does the Secretary of State accept that it is time to put that commitment to non-regression on food standards into law?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I could not have been more clear: these food standards are already in British law as part of the EU withdrawal agreement, and we are not negotiating those as part of our negotiations with the United States or any other trade partner.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

What steps she is taking to support (a) small businesses and (b) the self-employed to trade internationally as part of the covid-19 recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

We have launched trade negotiations with four of our closest partners: the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand—close allies with shared values, believing in democracy and free enterprise. We are prepared to walk away if any deal is not in the national interest. We will not lower our food standards. They are overseen by the independent Food Standards Agency and are in UK law. Ambitious free trade agreements will deliver on the Brexit promise to drive an industrial revival in this country and level up the UK.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I note the response that the Secretary of State gave to her opposite number earlier when talking about Brazil, but we are still trading with Brazil. Between 2013 and 2019, British financial institutions provided over $2 billion in financial backing to Brazilian beef companies linked to Amazon deforestation. How can we ensure that there is greater transparency in our supply chains so that we are not unwittingly, through exports from Brazil, contributing to such environmental degradation?

[Elizabeth Truss]

First, we are doing a lot of work on our supply chains, looking at vulnerabilities and resilience and making sure we have more transparency in supply chains. That work is being led through the Department for International Trade and Project Defend. Through our climate change negotiations, as we head towards COP26, that is precisely the type of issue that the Business Secretary will be looking at.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the long-standing agreements between local authorities, sectoral agreements involving UK universities and counterparts abroad, such as the British Israel Research Academic Exchange Partnership, and the many agreements between UK local authorities and regions in, for example, China, can provide a useful foundation and route in for trade deals that are based on existing identified mutual opportunities and interests?

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

On Monday in Yemen, 13 civilians travelling by road, including four children, were killed in an alleged Saudi airstrike—the latest innocent victims of this barbaric war. A year ago this week, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is unlawful for the Government to license any more exports of arms to Saudi Arabia for use in the war in Yemen, and ordered the Government to review all extant licences in the light of that judgment. A full year later, can the Secretary of State tell us whether that review of extant licences is complete and, if not, why not?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As the right hon. Lady knows from the written ministerial statement I made earlier this year, we have been reviewing our processes and making sure all the work we do is compliant with the consolidated criteria.

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but the fact is that, a year on from the Court of Appeal ruling, British firms are still exporting arms for use in Yemen, and that is unacceptable.

On a related issue, the Government refuse point black to tell us whether British-made tear gas and other riot equipment have been used in the United States over the past month. I ask the Secretary of State a very simple but important question that goes alongside that: does she condemn the tear gassing and beating of unarmed, peaceful protesters and journalists, and will she make it clear that riot equipment should never be used in that way?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Of course we are all extremely concerned about what has happened in the US—in particular, the killing of George Floyd. We are very, very concerned about that. However, we have one of the strictest arms licensing regimes in the world and we are absolutely clear—I have made this clear to the team—that we always comply with the consolidated criteria.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

Given that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that was meant to take place next week—I planned to attend it as the co-chair of the all-party group on trade out of poverty—has been postponed, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the Government continue to back the SheTrades initiative in order to support businesswomen throughout the Commonwealth?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for her commitment to this important cause. I am convening a meeting of Commonwealth Trade Ministers, due to take place this autumn, and the issue of female empowerment and entrepreneurship and the SheTrades initiative will be on the agenda for the meeting.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Can I ask about Welsh lamb? Every time I ask the Government about this, they always say to me, “Oh yes, it is all very worrying. We don’t know where it is going to go. It is very important that we make sure that there are no tariffs on Welsh lamb going into Europe.” It is important, because 50% of Welsh lamb is eaten in the UK and the rest goes to Europe. It does not go to any other markets, pretty much, around the world, so we have to get a zero tariff on Welsh lamb. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that, please?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am working very hard to get rid of the small ruminant rule in the United States, which prevents the export of our fantastic Welsh lamb to the market—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Gentleman shouting from a sedentary position. The US is the second largest importer of lamb in the world. It is a massive opportunity for lamb. In fact, this afternoon, I have a call with some Welsh sheep farmers to talk to them precisely about these opportunities. I suggest that he gets behind the US trade deal rather than shouting from the Back Benches.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

Manufacturers in the Black Country have recently shown the resilience and ingenuity that demonstrate why the Black Country is head and shoulders above the rest, in the whole of the United Kingdom. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that manufacturers in the town that I represent—in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton—can increase their exports and we can ensure an industrial renaissance for manufacturers in those towns?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that global free trade agreements present more opportunities than threats to British agriculture, particularly as we have fantastic products such as North Yorkshire lamb and cracking cheeses such as Wensleydale? Indeed, I think they also make cheese in Lancashire, Mr Speaker. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are likely to be more Americans wanting to eat British beef than British people wanting to eat American beef, particularly if accompanied by Yorkshire pudding?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree about the fantastic products such as Wensleydale, Yorkshire beef and lamb and all these opportunities. In fact, the first cargoes of British beef will be leaving UK ports this summer destined for America, now that the beef ban has been lifted. That is worth £66 million to the industry over the next five years. Of course, there is nothing nicer than a Sunday lunch and a nice bit of beef and Yorkshire pudding.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]]

From the continuity agreement, exports to Chile have grown on average by 16% a year and consumers in the UK have benefited from lower prices on fruit, nuts and excellent Chilean wine. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Chile, I ask the Secretary of State what further progress will be made to ensure that that trading relationship with Chile goes from strength to strength?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her positive question about Chile. Chile is an important trade partner of the UK. Of course, it is a key member of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which we want to join. We want to have a better trading relationship with Chile and the 11 fast-growing members of that agreement.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

My rural constituency of North Norfolk is highly agricultural, with farming being the lifeblood of the community, so along with telling me what steps are being taken to ensure that high animal welfare and import standards are kept, can we be positive and can the Secretary of State tell me about the great opportunities that there are for the farming community in North Norfolk to celebrate with a free trade agreement?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have said, we are absolutely committed to maintaining our high animal welfare standards and our high import standards and also to making sure that our farmers do not face unfair competition. That is something I am going to negotiate in every trade agreement we are discussing. There are huge opportunities, such as with malting barley. We are the second largest exporter of malting barley into Japan, and there are fantastic malting barley producers all across Norfolk who will benefit from lower tariffs and more trade.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

My constituent Freddie Melville wrote to me last week. He is 10, and when he grows up he wants to be a farmer like his dad. He told me that all animals deserve to be reared to a high standard and that allowing lower standard food into the UK would reduce what his father and other farmers get paid for their food. The Government want a trade deal with the US and want to protect UK farmers and consumers. They cannot have both. If they truly believe in their welfare standards, will the Minister commit to enshrining them in trade legislation, as they should have done with the Agriculture Bill?

[Elizabeth Truss]

If the hon. Lady looks at the analysis of the US agreement, it shows that UK farming benefits. That is because people in the United States want to buy high-quality, high-welfare UK produce.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State comment on how well placed the Food Standards Agency is to enforce our high import food standards?

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The use of bullets, tear gas and batons on innocent protesters has, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, shocked the world in the aftermath of the brutal killing of George Floyd, so can she tell us whether her Department has authorised the export of any of the above in the past 12 months?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have already answered a letter from the shadow Secretary of State on precisely this issue. Quarterly, we publish exactly which export licences we issue as a Department. We are completely transparent, and we operate in line with the consolidated criteria.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]]

It is good to see you again, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to the statement yesterday by my right hon. Friend and also to her remarks this morning about animal welfare. She must understand that there is still a concern because of the Government’s refusal to accept the agriculture Committee amendments to the Agriculture Bill. Will she give the House a complete assurance that once we have left the European Union and ended the transition period, no goods—animal products, fish products or bird products—will be allowed into the United Kingdom from the EU or anywhere else in the world where those are reared under conditions that we simply would not permit in the United Kingdom?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can give my right hon. Friend an absolute assurance that all the regulations we currently have in place with the EU will be transposed into UK law. However, it is not the case that we ask other countries to follow our domestic regulations. We currently import produce from Canada on zero tariffs without those requirements. We currently import goods from the developing world without those requirements. What is very important, and what I am committed to in all the trade negotiations, is making sure that any deal we achieve does not undermine our domestic production standards.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]]

Complacency from the Government, and indeed from the international community as a whole, over human rights violations in Kashmir has contributed to the crisis that is unfolding at the line of actual control. The Indian and Chinese armies are now toe to toe, and there has been a Mexican stand-off between Pakistan and India since last August. I do not need to remind anybody that these are three nuclear powers. What economic and other levers is the Secretary of State using to resolve this crisis? Will she urge the Prime Minister to call for a UN Security Council meeting to avert a global disaster?