PIP Breast Implants

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that despite this late hour you will be very interested to hear the shocking story I am about to tell, in this first ever parliamentary debate on a health scandal that is affecting at least 47,000 women across this country in one way or another. When I told people that I had secured this debate, it seemed that most, like me, remembered stories about the breast implant scandal from quite a few years ago. Like them, I thought the issue had been dealt with, and that the women had been recalled and supported, and the breast implants removed if necessary. But no.

A few months ago, local resident Jan Spivey from Putney came to my surgery with her shocking story. She is a victim of the Poly Implant Prothèse breast implant scandal, and she has had years of illness as a result. She also leads the national PIP Action Campaign, and I will start by thanking Jan, Louise, Wendy and Diane for all the work they have done to lead the campaign. I also thank all the women who wrote to me in advance of this debate telling me their stories, the relatives of the young women who have died as a result of this scandal, and the journalists who have exposed it.

Doctors estimate that, unless action is taken, there will be a peak of implant-related cancer deaths in 2026. Thousands of women and their families have been failed, by the implant companies that knew they were dangerous; by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which should never have allowed it to happen; by the medical clinics that restructured to avoid their duty of care towards PIP patients, and got away with it; and by the Government, who failed to take action over a decade ago when all the evidence was there. This just makes me angry. This is a women’s health issue, and I do not think it would have happened if it was men who had been affected. I think action would have been taken by now, but instead women have been suffering and dying in silence.

PIP stands for Poly Implant Prothèse, which was once the third biggest supplier of breast implants in the world, making an estimated 2 million sets of implants over 20 years. Following reports of abnormally high rupture rates, it was found in 2010 that the manufacturer had been filling implants with a sub-standard silicone gel made of a cocktail of chemicals intended for mattresses and not cleared for human use. The company went into liquidation in 2010, and its founder, Jean-Claude Mas, was convicted of aggravated fraud and sentenced to four years in prison in 2013. The French Government offered to pay for the removal and replacement of all PIP implants fitted in France, and after a decade-long battle, in 2021 a French court ruled that 2,500 victims are owed compensation. At the same time, 47,000 women in the UK have had PIP implants, but they have not been contacted to be told about the risks. Some have been offered and undergone removal, but many more have not been told about the risks of other illnesses and the links to cancer. They have not had the options.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, because I do not think the general public know of the risk. But those 47,000 women do know, so does she share my concern that the mental health toll that is putting on them is almost as bad as the health risks they have?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree. Someone knowing that they potentially have a ticking time bomb inside their body that might be causing poison is extremely worrying and causes huge anxiety. Many women have also not been told about the impact. For example, they have not been told by their GP of the links between having that in their body, and what they are experiencing.

Victims have reported a range of mental and physical health issues, including extreme pain, inflammation, headaches, infections, anxiety, digestive issues, sight issues, severe exhaustion and low energy. Many women suffered for years before realising that their health issues were a direct result of their faulty implants. GPs often are not putting the two together, and there is not the right information for them. One woman—she is an example of the many stories I heard—told me:

“I had the PIP implants placed in January 2009. Within a very short time I suffered from shortness of breath, heart palpitations, extreme fatigue, and my joints were swelling up to name a few symptoms. I was in and out of hospital for breathing difficulties and pains in my chest. At no stage were any of my symptoms ever recognised and I was told to take painkillers or, ‘It’s just your age’. I had the implants replaced in 2013 at my expense from the same company because they would not take any responsibility.”

She still has most of the capsules from the PIP implants, and she believes that they are still affecting her today. Her health has been compromised and the hazardous chemicals that remain inside her chest have taken a toll on her quality of life.

Women said to me that they were told that their implants were water-based and absolutely safe, and then they were not being listened to about their illness. They were often misdiagnosed and in so much pain. One woman told me of her “17 years of hell”, including that she could barely walk for two years. She also had sight loss and digestive issues. She felt that she was slowly dying inside from 2004, when the implants were put in. That was until September 2021, when the capsules were removed and she had her life back.

A serious impact is the link with cancer called breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, which is a rare type of cancer of the immune system. Susan Grieve, a mother of two young children, was the first person in the UK to have been recorded as dying from BIA-ALCL in 2013. As of 31 December 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has received 81 reports of confirmed BIA-ALCL. My first ask of the Minister is to review the link with cancer and to review the NHS website guidance. A long list of peer-reviewed papers—too long to include in my speech—evidences the link with cancer in the UK and internationally. However, the NHS website mentions six times that there is no cause for concern for women with PIP implants. It does say that there is a high risk of rupturing, but it should clearly explain the link with cancer to avoid GPs and PIP victims missing that important link and making a diagnosis too late.

One such diagnosis came too late for 36-year-old Lydia Bennett, who died from BIA-ALCL in 2019. Lydia’s family were not informed that she had died from breast cancer until 2022. The MHRA set up the plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery expert advisory group and, based on the group’s advice, issued several medical device alerts stating that patients undergoing breast implants for any reason should be warned about BIA-ALCL before the operation. However, that does not go far enough. By contrast, in 2021 the US Food and Drug Administration made the links clear and placed so-called “black box” labels on breast implants, warning that they have been linked to a host of chronic medical conditions including autoimmune disease, joint pain, mental confusion, muscle aches and chronic fatigue, as well as to lymphoma.

In replying to my written questions on concerns about PIP implants last November, the Minister cited two reports from the MHRA in 2010 and 2012, which seemed to be the basis for deciding that there was not a risk and putting that guidance on the website. However, so much more evidence has come to light since then. Does she have a view on the new evidence and why that has not been taken into account? Evidence buried away on the website contradicts the view that people with PIP breast implants do not need to worry. The risks are clear and well evidenced, and women should be told the truth.

My second ask is that there needs to be a register, and it needs to be used. The Government’s initial response to the scandal in 2010 was to issue a medical device alert to all UK clinicians and cosmetic surgery providers, asking them to cease use of the implants but not proactively to offer advice, removal or support for women who had had the implants. That support has fallen short ever since. The Government conducted the Howe report into PIP breast implants in 2012 as well as the Keogh review of the wider system of regulation for cosmetic interventions and whether a breast implant registry could be put in place. Both reviews promised action that has not been taken, and neither addressed the need to recall the PIP implants and let women know about the risks, let alone went into the area of compensation for the women affected.

All the women affected should be on a register and should be contacted proactively. There is no central register now. Since 2016 there has been a breast and cosmetic implant registry, which collects data for England and Scotland, but the problem is that it does not include women who had their PIP implants removed or replaced up until 2016. In the Government’s February 2014 response to the Keogh review, three recommendations were singled out for agreement, one of which was

“creating a breast implant registry to reassure women that if problems arise they can be contacted, kept informed and called in for treatment if necessary”.

Even the limited new register has not been used to proactively contact all women on the register to offer them medical check-ups, advise them of the links with cancer and other illnesses and, if suitable, offer them removal of implants.

Officially, as I think the Minister is about to tell me, anyone who has a PIP breast implant can request that it be removed, but that has not been the experience for many women with PIP implants—even those who know that their implants have ruptured. Many applications have been turned down, leaving women with a ticking time bomb in their body. They are unable to afford to get their implants removed privately, are worried that they will rupture further, and are experiencing clear side effects. Not only are they suffering through no fault of their own, but they are costing the NHS more because of the treatments that are needed.

Another shocking fact is that for those PIP victims who had their implants privately, all the major clinics that treated them have avoided paying compensation by “financially restructuring”—changing their name and reopening with another name on the same premises, with the same staff and the same medical records for the same patients. How can that be allowed? I know that many women affected by the issue will be watching or reading this debate; I urge them to contact the patient safety commissioner and tell her what they have experienced.

I know that the Minister was not in post when the scandal initially happened, but the support that victims are receiving now can be changed. I know that she is professionally experienced in the area, and I thank her for her interest so far. I fervently hope that she will take a personal interest in looking into the scandal and the reality of how women affected can be supported. I hope that justice can be done, and that the deaths from cancer that have been predicted can be prevented. I ask the Minister to follow up on this debate by meeting me and members of the PIP Action Campaign group.

I will end with a list of nine actions that I would like the Government to take—I have quite a few more questions, but I will save them for our meeting. First, in the light of this scandal, will the Government please review and act on the Paterson inquiry and the Cumberlege review and their recommendations about patient information, complaints, recall, ongoing care and compensation? Secondly, will they please look at funding research into BIA-ALCL and creating and maintaining a national tissue bank of BIA-ALCL cases, including full genome sequencing, as recommended by the plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery expert advisory group? Thirdly, will they please ask the MHRA to further investigate the evidence of the cancer link and change its guidance accordingly?

Fourthly, will the Government change the guidance on their website to give women all the information they need? Fifthly, will they change the guidance on the implants themselves so that they carry stronger warnings? Sixthly, will they set up a register for all women affected and proactively use it to offer them a full medical check-up and advice about their implants and tell them about all the risks of cancer and all other illnesses?

Seventhly, will the Government offer women removal of the implant and capsules? I know that that surgery carries risks, and that there is a balance of risk to be reached, but women need information and options. Eighthly, will the Government pursue companies for compensation for the women affected and stop the loophole that allows companies to shut down in one name without being liable and then carry on operating in the same building with the same patients? Lastly, will they hold an inquiry into how the whole scandal happened, so that the best support and treatment can be given now to women who were affected, and so that this can never happen again?

I am grateful to the Minister for the interest that she has taken in the matter. I hope that this debate will be the start of real action, taken at speed, to make up for the years of failure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

I will come on to that. As I said earlier, we stopped the use of these implants immediately in 2010. As for the 47,000 women who were given PIP implants, mainly in private clinics, they are now able to come forward and have those implants removed on the NHS if their doctors agree. Many women have done that, either to avoid the risk of rupture or to prevent it from happening if they fear that it might.

The hon. Lady asked for an inquiry. As she mentioned, independent reviews have been conducted, expertly led by Lord Howe in 2012 and by Sir Bruce Keogh in 2012 and 2013. The Department has led a programme of work to ensure that the recommendations from all those reviews have been implemented, including a set of actions to prevent this from happening again. We have ensured that cosmetic surgery is effectively regulated, and that only doctors who are registered with the General Medical Council can perform surgical procedures. We have introduced a number of measures requiring all surgeons offering cosmetic procedures to follow the guidelines. The Care Quality Commission now has a duty to rate and assess the performance of providers of surgical cosmetic procedures to ensure that they meet fully the standards of safety and quality expected of them, and enforcement action is taken when they do not.

As the hon. Lady also mentioned, the Breast and Cosmetic Implant Registry was established in 2016. It collects detailed information on every implant, so that affected women can be traced and contacted in the event of a product recall or safety concern. The difficulty involved in doing that retrospectively is that many of the procedures took place in private clinics where there was no access to that information, either because it was not recorded at the time or because it was recorded but difficult to access. However, the registry covers both the NHS and the private sector, so that would not happen today, and it covers England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The lessons learned from the work on PIP and the recommendations made by Baroness Cumberlege in her report on medical devices have been used to drive wider-ranging improvements. NHS England now has speciality-level clinical steering boards for the top 10 medical devices implanted, which represent around 80% of the implants now used. The boards drive forward improvements for implants used in a range of medical devices, and are developing the medical device registry to ensure that the relevant patients can be traced and contacted if problems exist.

The MHRA intends to further drive forward this issue by improving the traceability of medical devices through the unique device identifier and implant cards. Again, those were not available when the incidents happened. The Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 introduced powers to allow the MHRA to improve transparency on medical device safety issues. As the hon. Lady indicated, we now have the plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery expert advisory group, which looks for future issues around implants or other medical devices used in aesthetic surgery in a way that was not available back in 2010.

The breast cancer element is important for women to know. I take the hon. Lady's point about making that information more readily available. I also take her point about the black box labels that the FDA is using in the US, to see if we need to improve the information available for women. Any breast implant has the potential to cause a very rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma called breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. It is not breast cancer but a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that grows in response to the body’s reaction to a breast implant. It is not specifically related to PIP; there is a small risk from any breast implant. The MHRA has issued guidance for people with breast implants, but I take the hon. Lady’s point that women need to be informed of that small risk when deciding to go for a cosmetic procedure. We will follow up on that after this debate.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the Minister for her reassurance about what will happen now. I am thinking back to those women who have been affected; I take the point that it is hard to trace them. Could the Minister look at asking GPs if they know whether women have had implants, so that they can be contacted and informed about the links with the cancer, through those means if no other?

[Maria Caulfield]

Absolutely. It is important to ensure that women who have had PIP breast implants in the past are reassured and have the opportunity to come forward. As part of the women’s health strategy this year, we are developing a space on the NHS website—a go-to, informed place—specifically for women’s health. I am happy to raise this issue with officials to make sure that the information is there. PIP implants have a higher risk of rupture, but not necessarily a higher risk of the lymphoma that we have talked about. There is a small risk with any breast implant. We need to make that clear to women.

The company that produced the implants was the third biggest supplier of breast implants in the world. It went into liquidation in 2010. The founder was convicted of aggravated fraud and sentenced to four years in prison. The company had to take responsibility for its actions. I take on board the point that women who have had those implants can have them removed, but they need to know that that is available to them. I am happy to work with the hon. Lady to see whether we can improve that advice and information for women.

I reassure the House that the Government and I have patient safety and women’s health as a top priority. We will continue to keep current initiatives under review. We have put safeguards in place. I do not want to tempt fate, but we are not likely to see the same incident again, where we cannot trace women who have had the implants. We need to support those women who have been affected, and I am happy to work with the hon. Lady to make sure that that happens.

Question put and agreed to.

Black Maternal Health Awareness Week 2022

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray, and to be in this debate, although I hope that in future there will be no need for one, because we will have solved these issues, and women using maternity services can expect the same care and equal outcomes. That is why I was keen to be here, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on bringing forward the debate and on pursuing this issue. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response because it needs to be a priority.

In Wandsworth, 30% of residents are from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, and black maternal health is a big issue for us in Putney. We have a group called Putney Black Lives Matter. We meet to discuss important local issues, and black maternal health was highlighted as an issue of major importance. We are few here today, but across the country it is a big issue for many people: last year’s petition to improve maternal mortality rates and healthcare for black women was signed by 187,520 people, of whom 200 were from Putney.

I thank the campaign groups that have raised the issue so strongly: the Five X More campaign, Bliss, Sands, Birthrights, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. They have raised the issues of systemic racism and structural barriers, which lead to the appalling statistics read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. The statistics are worth reiterating, because they are at the heart of the issue. Black babies have a 50% increased risk of neonatal death and a 121% increased risk of stillbirth. Black women have a 43% higher risk of miscarriage, and are four times more likely to die during pregnancy or up to six weeks post-partum. Women of mixed heritage are three times more likely to die during pregnancy, and Asian women twice as likely. Those are horrendous statistics. Each loss of life is a tragedy, but it is also a gross injustice about which we should all care deeply. The statistics need to be understood, and need to change.

It is important to place those awful statistics in the wider picture of health inequalities. Black women face disparities when it comes to stillbirth, cancer diagnosis and outcomes, and access to fertility treatment. That is entrenched and deep-rooted inequality, racism and sexism. It will be hard to turn that around. The Minister will need to come back to this again and again, and to knock heads together in different Departments across Government to change it. But it must be done.

I have a lovely list of seven things on which I want to see action, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it. First, we need a whole-Government approach that recognises inequalities and their links to wider Government policies, as was mentioned by the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). We need the White Paper on health disparities, which will look across Departments. We need a new tobacco control plan for England, public health measures to address obesity, and a new air equality target for England, because those are all factors in increased black maternal mortality figures.

Black communities in the UK have an increased risk of poorer maternal and perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth and miscarriage. There are also inequalities in exposure to air pollution; that is the link between air pollution and maternal health inequalities. We must commit to reaching the interim World Health Organisation targets by 2030, rather than 2040; we can speed that up. What gets counted counts, and if there is a target, people strain to reach it more strongly. Dangerous levels of air pollution, especially in our urban areas, must be addressed.

The second issue is the continuity of carer. I pay tribute to the NHS South West London Clinical Commissioning Group—now the NHS South West London Integrated Care Board—and its chief nurse for what they do to tackle black maternal inequalities, especially in the area of continuity of carer. Women need the same team throughout pregnancy. I also pay tribute to our wonderful Emerald midwifery team from the St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Where there is continuity of carer, women are 16% less likely to lose their babies. That is a major focus for change in south-west London. Local maternity systems across the country have been asked to implement equity and action plans, which include the target of 75% of women from black, Asian and mixed ethnic groups receiving continuity of carer by 2024. I hope that we can increase that figure. Progress is being made towards the target. However, we must look at the target, find out whether there is enough data to measure it, and ensure that across the country, no matter where people live, we strive towards it. Will the Minister comment on the status of the continuity of carer target?

In their response to the Health and Social Care Committee report on the safety of maternity services in England, the Government accepted the recommendation on training for continuity of carer teams. It is essential that there be training across the board and implementation of continuity of carer teams, but obviously that relies on there being enough staff, which depends on the midwife workforce having enough funding.

Thirdly, I would like an end to charging migrant women for maternity care. Charging for care deters many women from seeking vital antenatal care, and it is shocking that the MBRRACE-UK confidential inquiry on maternal death identified that three women who died may have been reluctant to seek care because of cost. It is shocking that that happens in this day and age, in our communities—that women may be afraid to seek care because of their immigration, asylum seeker or migrant status.

My fourth point is about further evidence, research and data, which was mentioned by other hon. Members. Differences in outcomes and the reasons for them are unclear and under-researched, but we know that what gets counted counts. I join campaigners in calling for an annual maternity survey of black women, and increased research to identify the conditions that disproportionately affect black women. We should improve the ethnic coding of health records, and the system through which women submit feedback, so their voices are heard. It should be as easy as possible for them to provide feedback while they are still in hospital or under maternity care, so that we can hear those voices and they can feed into the survey data.

My fifth point is about maternity bereavement services. As was highlighted last week during the debate on baby loss, there is a difference in bereavement services across the country. On whether there are adequate bereavement services for those women who, sadly, suffer bereavement, the figures are shocking. St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, of which Queen Mary’s Hospital in my constituency is part, now has two bereavement midwives, two specialist consultants and one part-time psychotherapist in the maternity bereavement team. There are dedicated places for those who have suffered bereavement in maternity services across the NHS South West London Integrated Care Board area, which is to be welcomed. However, is this happening across the whole country? That is questionable. That support is very important at the time of loss, but also during care in future pregnancies.

Sixthly, I request, as others have, a White Paper on health disparities. That is important if we are to tackle the issue and look at the many other underlying reasons for the statistics. Seventhly, I ask for a target. In any ministerial meetings on this important issue, I hope that a target will be the Minister’s No.1 ask. We need one, followed by a concentrated effort to achieve it. I hope that will lead to the change we need.

In conclusion, black women cannot afford to wait any longer for action. There needs to be a clear action plan, data, transparency and a target. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, but I look forward even more to action. I thank all the midwives, in maternity services throughout the country, who give extraordinary care, and who go above and beyond.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) was not here at the start of the debate, but unusually we have plenty time, so I am happy to call her to speak.

Trade Bill

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill because I believe that removing unnecessary barriers to trade can boost jobs and growth, but I hope that the Minister and the Government will consider seriously whether changes can be made to strengthen parliamentary oversight, whether via the amendments we are considering today or in the other place.

I was one of 18 Conservative MPs to back new clause 2 of the Agriculture Bill. I did so because I believe our trade policy should be consistent with our values. The Government were elected on a manifesto with stronger commitments on the environment and animal welfare than any of their predecessors, but maintaining our domestic rules on animal welfare and environmental stewardship of land will have less and less real-world impact if more and more of our food is imported from countries with lower standards and fewer qualms about these matters than we have.

I would therefore like to hear the Minister confirm this evening that the Government will keep in place the import ban on chicken washed in disinfectant and will not at any stage ask this Parliament to remove it from the statute book. I hope that he will say the same about the ban on beef from cattle whose growth has been artificially boosted by hormones. We know that in the United States, many of them are intensively reared on feedlots containing thousands of animals fed off soy production, contributing to deforestation in the Amazon basin.

The reality is that more or less every country in the world reflects sensitivities over food in its approach to trade policy for the good reason that food security is crucial to any society. I warmly thank the Minister and the International Trade Secretary for agreeing to establish a commission to consider how we can secure the economic advantages of free trade agreements without undermining our world-class food standards. Those standards would be undermined if we allowed an unrestricted tariff-free influx of food produced using methods that would be illegal in this country. A good deal with the United States, a mutually beneficial deal, could see tariffs coming down even in sensitive sectors such as beef so long as incoming food complies with animal welfare and environmental standards that are equivalent to our own. Many US producers are perfectly capable of doing that, and it should not be beyond the wit of man to develop a certification and compliance system.

Contrary to what some have claimed, this is not a rerun of the debates on the corn laws, and it is a caricature to suggest that those of us raising concerns have somehow been captured by producer interests as our Victorian forebears in this House were. All I am asking is that we do not sell ourselves short in this country. The UK is the third biggest market for groceries in the world. Even conditional access to that market is a valuable prize. Just because we would like a trade deal with the US does not mean that we should give it everything that it wants. There is so much that we can offer our trading partners in the US and in other countries, and is it so unreasonable to say that, when it comes to food, there are limits to liberalisation?

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

This Trade Bill is fatally flawed. It could have been a bold statement about our future trade deals in which we used our independence from the EU, whatever we feel about it, to build in high environmental and food standards, workers and consumer rights, and commitments to achieving sustainable development goals and human rights and to modernise our trade rules in conjunction with constructive, modern, democratic scrutiny. Instead, this Bill is stripped of any of those. I urge Members to vote for new clause 4, which will enable the people’s elected representatives here in this House and in the devolved Administrations to say what is important for the British people.

High standards should be written into trade agreements from the start to the finish of negotiations and ensure that, for example, secret deals do not end up with selling off the NHS to the highest bidder. Chlorinated chicken could be just the start. These are not the words of doomsayers or baseless concerns; more than 400 NHS and senior public health professionals have signed an open letter, demanding legal guarantees in post-Brexit trade legislation to provide specific protections for the health service in any future trade negotiations, such as those with the US. US trade deals are already under way in secret, but even in the US both Houses of Congress get a guaranteed vote on trade agreements, and America’s process for public consultation prior to negotiation is impressively far-reaching in contrast with this Bill. The British public are being sold out by this Bill. What are the Government afraid of? What are the Government planning to do? What desperate deals will be struck to get a deal done, but on worse terms?

In my own constituency, 39% of jobs are in sectors identified as being severely impacted by a no-deal Brexit, or a bad deal with the EU. I am extremely angry, as are my constituents that, as an MP, I will have very little say over preventing this. Food standards are also a very huge concern to my constituents who are deeply worried that decades of progress in animal welfare, hygiene, husbandry and environmental management are going to be stripped away. Farmers and consumers will be worse off.

I am very disappointed that the Bill went through several days of scrutiny in the Committee, which I was a member of, without any changes whatsoever, and today we have just a few minutes of parliamentary debate starting in the late afternoon on only one day before the Bill goes to the next stage. In Committee, we heard evidence about how much stronger our trade negotiators could be if they had the backing of parliamentary red lines written into our legislation, but we were told over and over again by the Minister that proposals for parliamentary scrutiny of food standards, environmental standards and workers’ rights were not necessary.

[Steve Brine]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Fleur Anderson]

I only have a few seconds left.

If the planned negotiations will include all those rights and standards, that should be guaranteed by being written into parliamentary legislation. If the Government are planning to agree a bargained down, watered down race to the bottom, I can see why they would reject these amendments. That is why we should all be very worried about our future and about this Trade Bill.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

It is a great honour to speak in this debate, having spoken briefly on Second Reading and sat on the Bill Committee and being a member of the International Trade Committee. We had a wide-ranging, well-informed and constructive debate in Committee, and it is good to see so many of its members speaking in the debate.

I would like to address a number of points, including the clauses relating to the NHS and to scrutiny, but because of the time limit, I will confine myself to just one, which is standards, and in particular new clause 11. Simply put, new clause 11 would allow the import of agricultural goods into the UK

“only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as”

the standards that apply under UK law. On the face of it, that sounds reasonable because it just seeks to ensure what we already have. Nobody has any difficulty with that—everybody here wants to maintain the high production standards, animal welfare standards and environmental standards that we have. That is why the Government have been absolutely clear that they will do precisely that. That is why the Minister stood on a manifesto commitment to do exactly that. That is why I stood on a manifesto commitment to do exactly that, as did all my hon. Friends.

There are a number of misunderstandings, which I will briefly address. We have already heard a number of times from Opposition Members about chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef, and I am sure we will hear about it again before the end of the debate. Those are already illegal in UK law. They are illegal because they are in European Union law, and European Union law is put into UK law by the terms of the withdrawal agreement. When Opposition Members plaintively say, “Why won’t the Government just put this in primary legislation?” the answer is because it is already there. If it were to be removed, the Government would have to bring something to the House and get us to vote on it—they would have to change the law, and we have all expressed our view about that. That prohibition is already there, so new clause 11 is simply unnecessary.

New clause 11 seeks to go further than maintaining our high import standards. It is crucial that we distinguish between import standards, which is the safety of food brought into this country, and safety standards, which is the way that they are produced domestically. The new clause seeks to have us say to all our trade partners, “We want to go further than ensuring that we import safe food. We want to reach into your domestic legislation and tell you exactly how you produce that food.” No self-respecting independent country will want to do that.

Trade Bill (Sixth sitting)

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Public Bill Committees

We need a much more open approach. With the amendments, we are pushing to give Parliament a much greater role. It is not clear what the future of the International Trade Committee should be and what its involvement will be. That is a major shortcoming in the regard that is given to this place and how it should be scrutinising the role of Government. That will only lead to a greater diminution of democracy. I do not believe that that is in any of our interests.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is four years to the day since the referendum vote to leave the European Union and here we are, hardly oven ready. The stripping out of scrutiny is the most alarming of the many alarming parts of the Bill. A world-leading trade Bill must contain strong parliamentary scrutiny and transparency. The amendments and new clauses would enable debates to be held before, during and after negotiations, and the meaningful involvement of businesses, trade unions and interest groups across the country and around the world to assess the impact of any negotiations and help us make the best decisions.

The coronavirus crisis has shown the importance of proper parliamentary scrutiny. For example, the Chancellor’s economic support package—while I commend and welcome the support on offer—has been flawed in many crucial areas. I do not think that would have happened if there had been time—and there was not, I can see that—for much longer parliamentary scrutiny. That would have allowed self-employed people, people who had new contracts and limited company directors to say where they needed support from the economic support package. That is an example of where there needed to be better parliamentary scrutiny—there should have been more, catching up—and of where there are failings when we do not have time to look at the Bills we pass.

In the post-Brexit world, trade has been catapulted from the margins of public debate into one of the major talking points of political discourse. Trade agreements will have huge implications for our economy and future prosperity, and cut across huge swathes of public policy. They are of interest to all parliamentarians and to all areas of public policy, and are not to be done in secret in smaller areas. Future trade deals should be developed democratically. As such, it is wrong that the Bill does not address the gaping democratic deficit in trade policy. That is what the amendments seek to address.

The system under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is entirely inadequate and has not kept up with the times. It is no surprise that it has been criticised by no fewer than five parliamentary Committees. As the Minister himself has said:

“Parliamentary scrutiny is crucial for trade agreements, and we have seen the difficulties in recent years with trade agreements that have been insufficiently scrutinised, or where there was a feeling that there had been insufficient scrutiny—the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership perhaps being the most important example.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 281.]

Under the current system, MPs will have less say than our counterparts in Brussels and in Washington. In my constituency, 39% of jobs are in sectors identified as being directly and severely impacted by the continuity agreements. I am angry that, as an MP, I will have little say and little opportunity to prevent that. Moreover, given the profound effect that trade deals will have on jobs in Putney and Wandsworth, in London and across the country, it is troubling that under the Bill there will be no formal assessment of the impact of trade deals on different sectors of the economy and different regions of our nation, or consultation with businesses and trade unions.

New clause 6 lists all the different impact assessments: economic, social, human rights, environmental, animal welfare and food standards. Those things are of immediate concern to constituents, and yet we will not have an assessment of the impact of trade deals on them—or, if it does happen, it will happen behind closed doors and will not be open for public debate and scrutiny.

The CBI has noted:

“A trade policy that provides a clear, meaningful way for businesses to feed in all their experience and expertise into government will create the greatest value from the UK’s opportunities across the world—and ultimately support prosperity across the country.”

Surely that is what we want. There are expert groups, of course, but they need parliamentary scrutiny to lock in their feedback.

It is concerning that the Bill only addresses EU roll-over agreements and does nothing to set the parameters of future agreements with non-EU nations such as the United States. The Bill is a huge missed opportunity to establish a framework for future trade negotiations. The scope of the Bill is just too narrow.

For four years, we have been repeatedly told by Trade Ministers that the world is queuing up to do business with the UK. Last year, the then Secretary of State for International Trade declared to the Future of Trade and Export Forum that

“the UK has an untapped potential of £124 billion in the export of goods alone.”

The current Secretary of State has triumphantly announced:

“We are growing wheat more competitively than the Canadian prairies. We’re producing more varieties of cheese than the French. And we are even selling tea to China.”

If the Government are so confident in our attractiveness to prospective trading partners, as they should be, why is there such reticence about codifying the high standards and regulations that have been promised by the Prime Minister? Why are the Government so intent on ensuring the lowest common denominator in trading standards—a rush to get it through without an ambition to get through the best?

There is a constitutional point to be made here as well. The Trade Justice Movement, which represents 60 organisations, noted in its evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee that proper parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals is far more compatible with

“the UK’s traditional constitutional division between executive and legislative powers, where the executive is responsible for foreign policy.”

The crucial point is that, when it comes to trade, it is impossible to distinguish between the international and the domestic. The two are intricately linked, so to take trade out of the hands of Parliament runs contrary to hundreds of years of constitutional precedent. To ensure that Parliament is sovereign over domestic affairs, it is essential that it is given a role in scrutinising trade agreements.

To summarise, the amendments and new clauses that my colleagues and I have tabled would address the democratic deficit and create a stronger trade policy, which would ensure greater prosperity across our country. They would ensure a meaningful vote and debate for MPs on the Government’s negotiating objectives from the start, and a much-needed widening of the scope of a Bill that is silent on too many crucial issues. They would ensure far greater transparency during the negotiations, proper public consultation and meaningful engagement with civil society, businesses and trade unions, and the introduction of much-needed impact assessments that look beyond economic metrics to include the impact on the environment, human rights and developing countries. The Trade Bill would be far better for them.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

May I start by welcoming you again to the Chair this afternoon, Sir Graham? In an oversight, I was not able to welcome Mrs Cummins this morning, because there had yet to be a contribution from the Government Front Bench, thanks to the expansive efforts of the two chief Opposition spokesmen, the hon. Members for Harrow West and for Sefton Central.

Let me start by being in complete accordance with the words the hon. Member for Sefton Central said at the end of our minute’s silence, in paying tribute to the first responders and the emergency services in Reading at the weekend. We owe them all a debt of gratitude for the public response that took place.

Amendment 4 would mean that, before regulations were made under clause 2, the process of parliamentary scrutiny set out by the Opposition in new clause 5 or amendments 6 or 7, as appropriate, would need to be completed. I take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that the power in clause 2 is needed to provide for the continuity of existing trading relationships, not to implement free trade agreements with new trading partners. It will ensure that the UK continues to benefit from the EU-third country agreements to which we were a signatory before exit day.

During the evidence sessions, we heard from a very diverse group of witnesses, ranging as widely as the Institute of Directors, the CBI and ClientEarth, that the Government’s continuity programme was sensible and reasonable. Indeed, Parliament has so far ratified 20 continuity agreements with 48 countries. That accounts for £110 billion-worth of UK trade in 2018, which represents 74% of the trade with countries with which we were seeking continuity before the withdrawal agreement was signed. Those agreements were, of course, subject to extensive scrutiny in their original form as EU agreements. The main purpose of the power in clause 2 is to replicate existing obligations in current agreements. Additional new scrutiny, on top of what we already have in place, would not be a proportionate use of parliamentary time for existing agreements.

To reassure Parliament, we are going further and providing additional measures to constrain the power in clause 2 and provide extra scrutiny for any resulting legislation. All regulations made to implement obligations under these arrangements will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and the power is also subject to a five-year sunset period, which can be extended only with the consent of both Houses. We will discuss the sunset clause under a later group of amendments. Moreover, we have voluntarily published parliamentary reports—alongside continuity agreements—outlining any significant differences between our signed agreements and the underlying EU agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I am certainly not coming back on Report with a drafting correction for the deficiencies in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment; that would be a novel approach to Parliament. The fact is that this amendment rules out of scope all these agreements for roll-overs. I have to say, in fairness to him, that some of these agreements were controversial; some people opposed these EU EPAs in the first place, and I imagined that it was the Labour party’s position that it opposed these EPAs. If we listen to one or two groups, for example, they think that the EPAs have been stacked too heavily in the EU’s favour.

However, I think the hon. Gentleman is now saying that actually that is not his intention, and that his intention was not to prevent their being rolled over. I think he is now saying he is suddenly in support of the continuity of these agreements, despite having voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and despite the fact that virtually every word that we have heard from the Labour Party in this Committee has been against these agreements and against these Bills.

Returning to my point about continuity, these agreements have been subject in this country to the full EU agreement scrutiny process. The delay to ratification is not in this country, but relates to individual country or state delays. There is no scrutiny gap.

[Fleur Anderson]

Returning to the issue of Canada and delayed negotiations, can the Minister confirm that if we do not secure the free trade agreement with Canada before 31 December, we will lose all the benefits of the current EU trade deal with Canada and revert to trading with it on WTO terms?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, because I thought the Opposition were opposed to the Canada deal, so if we were to fall outside the Canada deal, they should be celebrating that. The Labour Front Bench opposed Canada in 2017, and I think they have opposed it again today. We are in discussions with Canada and we believe that there is time to do a roll-over agreement, but to do that we need the powers in the Bill. Amendment 9, which I think the hon. Lady has co-sponsored, would delete Canada from the list of agreements subject to the power, so if she votes for this amendment—if indeed there is a vote on it—she will effectively be preventing the roll-over of the Canada deal.

I will come to a conclusion. I was very surprised by this amendment. I praised the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central, last week for the attention he had given to oral questions earlier that day, but now I am not sure whether he really paid enough attention. He may have missed hearing the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), say from a sedentary position that she is in favour of CETA, the Canada agreement, and that she voted for it at the time.

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right: she did vote for it at the time, and that is obviously the Labour party’s new position. We know that sometimes in political parties, particularly when we are in opposition, there can be a new position and it takes a while for that new position to filter out across the whole party, but I am a little bit surprised that the new position has not filtered down to her own Front-Bench team, let alone the whole party, because they are trying to say they do not want to roll over the Canada agreement for an agreement that their shadow Secretary of State was praising only last Thursday. I find that approach absolutely bizarre.

If amendment 9 were to be accepted, there would be no UK-Canada trade agreement to roll over in the scope of clause 2. Labour said one thing in the Chamber last Thursday, but is saying precisely the opposite in Committee. Our Canadian friends will look on askance, as will our friends from the Caribbean, Kenya, South Africa, Mozambique, Ghana, Cameroon, Ivory Coast and so on.

This is a continuity Bill. There is certainly continuity in the Labour party’s confusion on trade. When it came to the original Canada agreement in the vote of February 2017, Labour split three ways: 68 of its members followed the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) in voting for the CT agreement; 86 broke with the right hon. Member for Islington North and voted with the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury in favour of the agreement; and the rest abstained.

I think I heard the hon. Member for Harrow West then say that he regretted the fact that there had not been a debate about the Canada agreement on the Floor of the House. I spent a few years in the Whips Office. One of the first rules of being a Whip in Opposition is never bring a debate on which your own party is divided to the Floor of the House, let alone something where you are divided three ways and your leader is in the minority view. Now he is saying that he regrets that it was not brought to the Floor of the House.

We should vote down amendment 9, because it would rule out of scope Canada, the Caribbean and many other important trade agreements that the EU has negotiated. The UK was part of that negotiating team. They are very important trade agreements. We would like to see the continuity of those trade agreements, as do our constituents and UK businesses. I urge hon. Members to vote against amendment 9. Indeed, I hope the Opposition withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Can I say what an honour it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham? In the context of the debates about racial inequality that are taking place around the world, and the Government’s announcement that they will seek to absorb the Department for International Development into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it is vital to ensure that we do not shy away from our international responsibilities. That includes ensuring that any future trade deals cannot be used as vehicles to undermine human rights and workers’ rights, either at home or abroad. The safeguards in the amendment are, frankly, common sense, and it should not prove any barrier to free trade agreements with a wide range of trading partners, as is the Government’s stated aspiration. However, it is important that those safeguards are explicit in the Bill.

To illustrate why that is the case, I will give an example. In the public evidence session, I asked the Digital Trade Network about the risk of the US exporting section 230-style provisions into trade deals. As members of the Committee will be aware, these provisions are pushed by the big technology firms, because they effectively restrict US trade partners from making domestic legislation that might introduce any regulation. Without the safeguards in the amendment, there is increasing concern that the UK will be bullied into accepting these provisions in the upcoming UK-US trade deal, which will gut the upcoming online harms Bill and its promise to increase protection for children online.

Ensuring consistency with children’s rights is essential, but the threat is not just to our children. The Community Security Trust’s report, “Hate Fuel: the hidden online world fuelling far right terror”, outlines the global threat of far-right terror, which has its own online language and subculture that are developed and sustained on these social media platforms. This material repeatedly and explicitly calls for Jews to be killed. Indeed, many of the most hateful things that I receive as a Jewish parliamentarian originate from the US and Canada.

Governments, law enforcement and technology platforms must co-operate internationally to combat the propaganda that fuels far-right terror, just as they have done previously to tackle the propaganda that encourages and promotes jihadist terrorism. Protecting the sovereignty of Parliament, the legal authority of UK courts, the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law will ensure that this place does not have one hand tied behind its back in its efforts to do just that.

As we discussed at length in debates on earlier amendments, because there is limited scope for parliamentary scrutiny of new trade agreements and because the Minister is unable to give guarantees on this issue today, despite being given repeated opportunities to do so by diligent Opposition Members, building these safeguards into the Bill will make sure that they cannot be missed out and that the scrutiny is sufficient to prevent adverse consequences that could result in a breach of one of the regulations set out in the amendment.

The amendment would also benefit our continuity agreements. The Minister mentioned that some of the predecessor agreements had been signed when Labour was last in Government. I was a teenager when Labour was last in Government, and a lot has happened since then—not just that my hair has started to go grey. I cannot understand the reluctance to ensure that continuity agreements that we are trying to secure are consistent with and do not conflict with these safeguards, given many of the seismic shifts that we have seen in geopolitics over the last decade or so; things have moved on considerably in that time.

It is only right that we ensure that continuity agreements remain fit for purpose. If they do not meet the criteria outlined in the amendment, why have we endeavoured to keep them? If the agreements do meet the criteria, there is really no need to oppose the criteria.

[Fleur Anderson]

This is, at last, a very uncontroversial amendment. I do not think that any of us in this Committee would disagree with the idea of complying with agreements that the Government have already decided to comply with.

For example, trade agreements and the UK’s commitment to the sustainable development goals are completely inseparable. In September, there will need to be a post-covid global rethink about, and recommitment to, the sustainable development goals to make it clear that we still aspire to attain them, so we will need to have this approach baked in to our trade negotiations.

“Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” explicitly recognises international trade as an engine for inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction, and an important means of achieving the SDGs. Those goals include aims such as no poverty, zero hunger, gender equality, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastructure, reduced inequalities, responsible consumption and production, and climate action. All of these goals are intrinsically tied to trade. It is, therefore, worrying that the Bill contains no mention of the SDGs, and it is a relief to have the opportunity to vote them into the Bill with amendment 10.

More worrying still is the fact that while trade will be crucial in achieving these global goals, it can also act as a barrier to achieving them. The economic partnership negotiations in west Africa, for example, are very controversial because of the impact of packaging requirements, and the use of sanitary and phytosanitary standards as non-tariff barriers to trade and to an increase in industrial strategy that could lead to greater development and greater prosperity, both in west Africa and here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill really should be the framework for what a progressive international trade policy framework should look like. There was an opportunity. Given that the Government did not pass the Bill when they had the chance last year or the year before, they could have included the provision this time. This amendment would produce a framework of the order expected by the witnesses.

There are real problems in international trade that affect our ability to meet our climate obligations. Trade agreements are used to liberalise regulations, including environmental regulations. The Bill is an opportunity to redesign trade policy to support our environmental ambitions, as the Government set out. The target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and associated commitments are in our amendment. The opportunity is there for the UK to require trade partners to ratify and implement key climate change agreements, such as Paris, before entering into trade negotiations, and for us to suspend ISDS agreements.

Environmental policy has been the object of investor-state dispute settlement litigation. Companies that have fossil fuel interests have sued other companies’ Governments because of the impact of Government regulations and legislation on their interests. That undermines investment and support for the renewables sector, and efforts to decarbonise economies and meet our climate obligations. Similar points are made about the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, and the convention on biological diversity. If the Government want to address this agenda, they have an opportunity to do so with this amendment, and I hope they take it.

Given that the Bill is widely drawn and has the potential to address future trade agreements, let us look at what the US has been saying. This should worry us, given the damage that could be done by international trade agreements. In December, the US ruled out talk of a climate crisis in trade negotiations—yes, that is what trade representative Lighthizer said. He was categorical about that when the UK inquired—I am pleased that the UK did this—about the possibility of including reference to climate change in a future UK-US trade agreement, given that the UK has a strong historical stance on climate change and pushed strongly for the Paris agreement. The UK also highlighted in those talks the pressure for that that would come from civil society and non-governmental organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to the evidence that the Committee received.

What was the response from the US? It

“responded emphatically that climate change is the most”

politically sensitive

“question for the US, stating it is a ‘lightning rod issue’, mentioning that as of 2015,”

US trade representatives

“are bound by Congress not to include mention of greenhouse gas emission reductions in trade agreements. US stated this ban would not be lifted anytime soon.”

The US trade representative went further:

“we have an obligation to help real working people...there’s no point in being so ambitious we don’t end up with an agreement at all”.

The problem with that statement, of course, is that it is not one or the other. In the end, real working people need a planet that they can live on. They need the global temperature not to increase by more than 1.5°. They need the action on climate that will deliver that agenda. They need the jobs that will come from investment in low carbon industries now and in the future.

We should be worried about what the US is saying on this subject. We should take note of it and make sure that if the price of an agreement with the US is to oppose action on addressing the climate crisis, it is a price far too high for us to accept. I hope the Government will take the amendment on board, because there is nothing in it that is not in accordance with Government policy.

[Fleur Anderson]

Moving on from the sustainable development goals, and looking at the environmental regulations and the environmental issues that are baked into the Bill, we are already committed to climate action. The Minister has affirmed that we are and want to be compliant, and we aspire to see the achievement of the sustainable development goals. That means taking radical action and treating the climate situation as an emergency. To do that we need to add the amendment to the Trade Bill.

In doing so, we will be safeguarding life in water and on land. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his Government’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050 and boldly stated that “we will crack” the climate emergency. As a global leader on climate action, the UK must set an example to the rest of the world by honouring its international obligations under the Paris agreement and other multilateral environmental agreements. Trade policy is an integral part of that, so it should not be left out of the Bill.

Trade agreements can foster good climate action, but they can also impede Government implementation of climate commitments. They could threaten to increase fossil fuel use, for example, which we explicitly decided not to do in declaring a climate emergency. They could also hinder the sharing of green technology.

Trade agreements typically include national treatment for trade in gas, thereby locking in dependency on a fossil fuel with high greenhouse gas emissions, while incentivising increased fracking and fossil fuel infrastructure. We would not want continuity agreements that include those. The EU’s own impact assessment of TTIP—the EU-US trade deal—predicts that it would generate an additional 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. That is fundamentally at odds with our international climate obligations, so we must bring our trade policies up to date with our environment obligations.

The dangers that trade deals pose to the environment can be clearly seen in the EU-Mercosur trade agreement currently under negotiation. A fortnight ago, the Dutch Parliament rejected the agreement, due to a lack of enforceable agreements on the protection of the Amazon or the prevention of illegal deforestation. Conducting trade negotiations without clear environmental red lines on the statute book—which this amendment would provide—with countries led by individuals such as President Bolsonaro, under whom deforestation of the Amazon has increased by 27% according to the NGO SOS Atlantic Forest Foundation, poses a huge threat to the Government’s international, climate and environmental obligations.

As the WWF has noted, rushing into trade deals with partners that do not share our ambitions could undermine UK leadership on positive environmental outcomes, by allowing imports from industrialised agricultural systems or through supply chains that promote deforestation. “Risky Business”, a report by the WWF and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, demonstrates that the UK is already moving backwards on reducing the UK’s overseas land footprint, which increased by 15% between 2016 and 2018, suggesting that we are increasingly offshoring our environmental impact. We need to do better.

To conclude, the Bill gives us an opportunity to ensure that our trade policy supports our environmental ambitions by explicitly putting them into the Trade Bill, including the target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Amendment 11 is a positive step towards that goal and is consistent with the Government’s own commitments and obligations, so everyone should agree to it, to ensure that the UK complies with international law and that we remain a world leader on climate action.

[Greg Hands]

As I have set out, the Government’s continuity programme is coherent with existing international obligations, as it seeks to replicate existing EU agreements to secure continuity for businesses and consumers. As I have made clear, we have no intention of lowering standards—environmental, labour or otherwise. The Prime Minister set out that commitment in his Greenwich speech and I have repeated it on many occasions, including today.

The UK has often led the way and exceeded EU minima on environmental issues, such as greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. I predict that we will continue to do so, thus making the amendment redundant. For example, the UK was the first country to introduce legally binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets through the Climate Change Act 2008. We were also the first major economy to set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from across the economy by 2050. We have cut our carbon emissions by nearly twice the EU average since 1990—by 42%.

Put simply, the UK has an extremely strong record on environmental action. I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendment is unnecessary, as we will be safeguarding and promoting, not undermining, our environmental obligations. Consequently, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

A number of times, my hon. Friend has effectively reminded the Committee, in response to interventions from Government Members, that scrutiny will ensure that we do not have those sorts of problems. They would do well to take on board his advice and expertise, which is driven by his experience in government of looking at such matters. I daresay that when the Bill goes to the Lords, their Lordships will do just that. We might end with some changes to the Bill, even if we do not make any changes in Committee or on Report in the Commons.

We would do well to look at the evidence that was given to us. We would do well to look at what was said during the proceedings on the Agriculture Bill. We would do well to remember that some Government Members were led to believe that there would be an amendment to the Trade Bill that gave protections against the sorts of problems that I have just set out. That is why we have tabled an amendment later in proceedings to ensure that we deliver exactly that.

For now, the Paymaster General wants to leave it to the consumer. I want to ensure that the consumer is not put in a difficult position because, whereas in this country and in the EU we require labelling on meat about where it was hatched, reared and slaughtered, the US repealed similar legislation in 2015. If we do not want to have problems over the safety of our food—I will mention GM and some of the problems with vegetables as well—I suggest we attach an amendment such as this one to the Bill, or do as Ministers told their hon. Friends on the Agriculture Bill, and pass that amendment when we get there, probably, on Thursday.

[Fleur Anderson]

I have a few short remarks to make about food standards, which are of huge concern to my constituents. More than 100 people have written to me in the past week or so calling for a food standards commission to be set up, and they are watching this amendment carefully. I am sure this is another in a series of amendments on which we will hear from the Minister how much he agrees with what we are saying, and then he will go ahead and vote against it.

If so, and if we do not have these amendments in the Bill to say what our standards are, where would we have them? We could just have a note from the Secretary of State saying, “I am getting on with the trade agreements; let me carry on.” But no, we have a Bill, so we can set out what we want in those trade negotiations. The past few months have served as a reminder to us all to value our food, to think about where it comes from, its safety and its traceability, and to value our farmers and growers who produce it.

In a post-Brexit world, liberalised trade could expose British agriculture and mean that our farmers would have to compete with products that would be illegal to produce here in the UK. Now is the time for us to be world leaders and use that position to increase the animal welfare and environmental standards of food production across the world, in the continuity agreements and in others.

The chorus of voices in the food sector who are concerned about the future of food standards in our trade policy is deafening. The NFU has expressed concerns, noting that in our current and forthcoming trade negotiations other countries will not only urge the UK to follow their own sanitary and phytosanitary standards arrangements, which in many cases diverge from current UK practice, but resist any suggestion that their own producers meet the production standards and additional costs required of UK farmers, who will then lose out.

That leads us to the conclusion that it is hard to see how trade liberalisation will not inevitably lead to an increase in food imports produced in ways that would be illegal in the UK. In addition, the British Poultry Council believes that if food produced to lower standards is allowed to enter the British market, it will create a two-tier food system, in which only the affluent can afford to eat British food grown to British standards. That is unacceptable.

Turning briefly to animal welfare standards, it is important to understand that this is not a mere ethical luxury or a nicety—a nice-to-have addition to the Bill that we could have or not. Friends of the Earth has pointed out that intensive farming with few welfare protections is associated with deforestation, local pollution, poor workers’ rights and high emissions.

The Government have repeatedly assured us that they do not want to see regression in this area, and I am sure we are about to hear that again. Michael Gove committed on multiple occasions to ensuring that the UK was a global leader on animal welfare. That promise was reiterated in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. However, Friends of the Earth is concerned that future trade partners will want to water down the UK’s very high animal welfare standards, and that free trade agreements, which are the subject of the Bill, could pose a serious threat to the Government’s existing commitments to maintaining and improving UK standards.

The most effective way to prevent a regression in food and animal welfare standards, which is a worry for many different groups, and for the Government to keep their word would be to enshrine these standards in primary legislation before entering trade negotiations, taking them off the table altogether and therefore agreeing amendment 13.

Contrary to some commentators’ views, the amendment is not incompatible with global trade rules. Trade rules enshrine the rights of nations to regulate to achieve public policy goals, and to require that goods and services reach specific standards to qualify for import, as long as those requirements are applied fairly. The amendment would achieve that, and ensure that we have good food standards.

[The Chair]

I remind the hon. Lady to refer to Members of the House not by name, but by their constituency. I call Matt Western.

Trade Bill (Fourth sitting)

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 18th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

Thank you, Sir Graham. My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, because it is absolutely relevant to amendment 24, which deals with

“labour market interventions and compliance with ILO standards”.

The way that workers are treated in supply chains is an extremely important aspect of procurement, and a great deal can be learned from the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which was passed by this Government’s predecessor. The way that those at the top of supply chains are required to police those supply chains for evidence of modern slavery and exploitation more widely gives us a valuable lesson about how procurement might be used to achieve the goals set out in all these amendments, not least amendment 24, which deals with labour.

I mentioned defence security. Security is a carve-out of its own: Governments are allowed to procure domestically on the basis of security. However, we are all aware of the saga of the fleet solid support ship. Happily, it appears that the Government, having delayed taking decisions or making announcements, are heading to the point where there may be a domestic award of that or a similar contract. It is remarkable, and really quite scandalous, that we got to the point where there was a question mark over whether that contract would be awarded domestically. Security, and the way security contracts are let, gives us examples—in the same way my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West did with modern slavery—of how the amendments might be applied by Government if we can negotiate them with our GPA partners.

Too many UK companies are not winning UK contracts—a point that was made by Nick Ashton-Hart earlier—and it would be a challenge for them to compete on price in other GPA markets with lower regulatory and labour standards, such as China, which I think my hon. Friend touched on earlier, other parts of south-east Asia, and even the United States. There is a massive question mark about whether that is desirable, which is one of the reasons I tabled amendment 24, which addresses labour market interventions and compliance with ILO standards.

I know that the Government are very keen on non-regression when it comes to labour rights and standards. That is one reason why amendment 24 matters—it gives the Government an opportunity to demonstrate, in the area of procurement, that they do what they say they believe in. Indeed, all these amendments give the Government an opportunity to support policies that were proposed in the manifesto that Conservative Members fought the December election on, or to support things like “buy British”. I am not advocating a similarity to Buy American, but that is the way the United States applies its GPA provisions and there is much we can learn from that, as I said earlier about support for smaller firms. Domestic procurement spending is an essential part of how we will recover from the economic crisis that has come alongside the covid crisis, and I hope the Government will act on that basis.

[Interruption.] It is always a good idea to come to a Bill Committee very well prepared. I could not help but enjoy the Minister’s description in this morning’s evidence session that he had not enjoyed a filibuster for a long time. I assure you that I have no intention of filibustering and I will not be reading out the entirety of what I have available, but in bringing my remarks to a close, I want to say this: the four amendments are tabled in the hope that we are supporting Government policy, as stated by the Prime Minister and Ministers and in the Conservative manifesto.

The four amendments are designed to support our domestic economy, and to balance the needs of our domestic economy with supporting the rules-based approach to international trade. They are designed to support the levelling-up agenda that the Government say they are keen to promote. I hope that the Minister and Conservative Members will take them in that context and consider the long-term economic, social, environmental and labour value to be had from this kind of approach to procurement. Unless we are prepared to use this moment to deliver the continuity that the Bill is about, it is hard to see how we will maintain the standards of procurement that we have at the moment, let alone enhance them.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. This is my first opportunity to speak in a Bill Committee as a new MP, and what an honour it is to speak in such an important debate—an important debate for not only my constituents in Putney, who are very interested in this Committee, having been told all about it, but people across the country and across the world.

In bringing forward the Trade Bill, there is an opportunity to take back control. It is as if we were all in a car and we decided we would like to start driving, so we said to the driver, “Can we start?”. There were a couple of years of intense negotiations about who would drive the car, and we have taken back control of the car, but instead of doing something with that—driving better, maybe moving from the middle to the fast lane of the motorway, having a better car, or going further and faster—we have decided to chunter along in the same way and to just decide journey by journey. The Bill could give us a better journey every single time. This is an opportunity to have a much more modern and ambitious Trade Bill, and the amendments we have tabled seek to do that. Standards and scrutiny will improve the Bill enormously.

Turning first to the International Labour Organisation and amendment 24, the UK was a founder member of the ILO in 1919 and has been an active member ever since. It has ratified 87 conventions, including the eight core fundamental ILO conventions contained in the 1998 declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work, as well as two protocols. Amendment 24 absolutely aligns with that.

The ILO makes it clear in no uncertain terms that member states must treat the conventions with the utmost seriousness, and agreeing the amendment would do just that. The declaration states:

“all Members, even if they have not ratified the Conventions in question, have an obligation arising from the very fact of membership in the Organization to respect, to promote and to realize, in good faith and in accordance with the Constitution, the principles concerning the fundamental rights which are the subject of those Conventions”.

Since the 1998 declaration, it has become commonplace for the ILO conventions and instruments to be implemented in free trade agreements, so the amendment is absolutely within the remit of the Bill. For example, only recently, the free trade agreement between the European Union and Vietnam has been praised by the ILO for its commitment to labour standards. We could endorse that approach and lock it into the continuity and future agreements by passing the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is quite rightly setting out some of the reasons why the ILO standards are so important. In the context of how ILO standards benefit British workers, is there not a significant fear that by not including amendment 24 in the Bill, we might inadvertently encourage a race to the bottom? It might allow other countries with lower standards and pay arrangements to win procurement contracts that British firms could have won. In turn, that would encourage British firms to lower wages and standards to try to win those contracts in future.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that apposite remark. That is what we risk if we do not include the amendment. If it is not explicit in the Bill, it will have to be negotiated in every single agreement, so we might miss out on some.

The dangers have already been manifested through the continuity trade agreements that have been agreed. Trade deals have already been struck with countries where labour and human rights abuses pervade, such as Colombia and South Korea. In South Korea, trade union leaders have been thrown in prison for peaceful protest for workers to claim their rights, while Colombia remains the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists, as around two-thirds of murders of trade unionists take place there. The risks are very real. The UK has also rolled over an agreement with Lebanon, which was criticised last year by Amnesty International for allowing the exploitation and abuse of many of the country’s 250,000 migrant domestic workers, most of whom are women.

None of those continuity agreements contains mechanisms to sanction Governments who fail to respect fundamental labour and human rights, yet every member of the Committee would agree that that is what we would want to do. All trade deals must contain mechanisms to enforce labour rights and decent work, so as to prevent trade deals from being used as a way to pressure labour standards to be lowered, causing a race to the bottom. To ensure that those mechanisms are effective, trade unions must be given a role to trigger investigations into abuses of workers’ rights. The Bill must therefore affirm that all UK trade deals will contain a mechanism to enforce International Labour Organisation conventions, so that trade unions are able to trigger investigations into suspected abuses. Amendment 24 will achieve that and assure that the UK upholds its responsibilities to the International Labour Organisation.

Amendment 25, on climate and carbon considerations, would put us firmly in line with sustainable development goal 13 on taking climate action, to which we have signed up. On 1 May last year, we in this place declared a climate emergency and, as has been mentioned, that was echoed by councils and devolved Governments. Wandsworth, in my own constituency, declared a climate emergency, and we want to see that reflected in the Bill. While our attention has rightly been on responding to the coronavirus crisis, we would all agree that the climate crisis has not gone away. That is why we feel it was important to table the amendment.

The rush to fill the gap created by leaving the customs union cannot be used as an excuse to undermine and circumvent our legally binding climate change commitments, made under the Paris agreement, or the Government’s own target of achieving net zero by 2050. That is why that issue is listed in new clause 2, along with a whole list of important issues, such as waste, water, quality and biodiversity.

In February, I was in the Court of Appeal when it ruled in a landmark judgment that the national policy statement underpinning a third runway at Heathrow airport was unlawful, as it was incompatible with the Paris agreement. The decision not to take the Paris agreement into account in that policy statement was deemed by the judges to be legally fatal to the national policy statement. If we do not accept this amendment, we risk having a contradiction between our environmental agreements and our trade deals.

To date, trade deals have been negotiated separately to climate agreements, but a joined-up policy would be far more effective for both. Not having a joined-up policy is a mistake, as current trade rules place trade promotion and liberalisation ahead of climate goals. The Trade Justice Movement, which we heard from this morning, has identified three ways in which current trade rules can do that. First, investment chapters in trade and investment deals allow companies to sue Governments for measures taken to support climate goals, such as the denial of a permit to construct an oil pipeline, and thus to undermine those goals. Secondly, WTO rules have been used regularly by states to challenge each other’s subsidies to renewable energy industries, and yet not one case has been brought against fossil fuel subsidies. Thirdly, no trade deal that is currently in force contains any binding commitments to ensure that international trade supports climate targets.

Trade agreements also impede Government implementation of climate commitments. For example, they prohibit the use of local content requirements, which can be crucial in producing domestic support for renewable energy. If trade agreements do not have an explicit commitment towards honouring climate commitments, they can hinder the sharing of green technology, for example by implementing far-reaching intellectual property provisions that threaten to hinder the sharing of green tech.

Trade rules can also threaten to increase fossil fuel use, which we explicitly decided not to do in declaring a climate emergency. Current trade and investment agreements foster a global culture of fossil fuel dependency, for instance by prohibiting export and import restrictions on fossil fuels, thereby depriving Governments of a tool to limit production of those fuels.

Unless it is properly regulated, trade can present a huge barrier to alleviating the climate emergency and achieving carbon reduction targets. Indeed, when trade agreements are done badly, they can accelerate a race to the bottom on environmental standards. Therefore, I echo the call of Greener UK in its evidence to the Committee, including its written evidence, that the Bill must include a lock and a legal commitment on carbon reduction targets.

The Bill is silent on climate issues and carbon reduction issues, and so misses a huge opportunity to enshrine our climate commitments and the SDGs in UK law. We have an opportunity to be world leaders in enshrining climate commitments in our trade legislation, but we are missing that opportunity.

Our new clauses and amendments would ensure that all trade agreements that the UK negotiates are climate-aware. The UK should use trade deals to show the world how trade and trade agreements can be made compatible with net zero ambitions, including by prioritising goods and services that are low carbon and environmentally sustainable.

We can push on from what already exists in the continuity agreements and show the rest of the EU what can be done. We could ensure that the UK’s trade negotiations and agreements are underpinned by high environmental standards. That would act as a safeguard against regression in standards, and not just those linked purely to economic advantages.

The Government have already shown that they are willing to backtrack on global environmental standards. For example, the Environment Bill fails to include a legally binding commitment to meet World Health Organisation guidelines for fine particulate matter. That is a very big issue for people in Putney, because Putney High Street has one of the highest levels of air pollution in the country, and we look to the EU to set that standard. My constituents would not be encouraged by trade deals that do not include an assessment of the impact on air quality, for example. Amendment 25 would also prevent trade agreements from impeding the UK’s ability to ratify and properly implement international treaties such as the Paris agreement, which would send a message to the world that compliance with international climate agreements are the norm—this is how we can do it.

Amendment 26 is about small and medium-sized enterprises. As has been said, SMEs have been hit incredibly hard by the coronavirus crisis. Since March, more than 60 businesses in my constituency have written to me in desperate need of help, and I am sure the same is true for other Members. The future of 39% of businesses in my constituency, the majority of which are SMEs, rests on the trade deals contained in this Bill. Many have fallen through the cracks of the Government’s economic support package. They are unable to secure grants, loans or even business rate support for different technical reasons, and they are staring down the barrel of liquidation.

SMEs are the lifeblood of the UK economy—the backbone, as was said earlier. Future trade agreements must be tailored to support the sector and give it the hand-up it needs, over and above the interests of large multinationals, which otherwise disproportionately win out. In particular, the Bill must establish a level playing field—we all love a level playing field—for procurement, and procurement rules must be simplified to encourage and enable bids from SMEs. The Bill must make it easier for SMEs to export. It currently offers very little for small businesses. Surely everyone on this Committee wants to support the SMEs in our constituencies and across the country. Our amendments would ensure that the needs of SMEs are met.

Amendment 27 is about public health. The covid-19 crisis has taught us some valuable lessons about the importance of our national health service. Through the PPE scandal and the EU ventilator scheme farce, the Government have learned the hard way about the importance of procurement and trade to public health. At the peak of the crisis, I called every major social care provider in my patch, and they were all experiencing shortages of PPE. We discussed earlier companies whose offers were not taken up. In Putney, local voluntary groups had to resort to 3D printing their own visors. There are 100 volunteers right now at their sewing machines making up packs of scrubs for local health providers. The Turkish shipment of 400,000 gowns that failed UK safety standards showed us the importance of high procurement standards in trade Bills for public health services. We learned the hard way, across the country, how important that is.

As the NHS Confederation noted,

“Health issues are often not high on the agenda (or on the agenda at all) in trade negotiations.”

Trade agreements often risk a trade-off between lowering standards and increasing the financial burden for patients and the health and social care system. Impact assessments must be carried out to ensure that trade deals do not prioritise commercial advantage over and above health.

Operating on World Trade Organisation terms will not force the NHS to open services to foreign providers. If the NHS is sold off bit by bit to foreign providers in trade deals, that will be a political decision made by the Government. Yesterday in the House, I asked the Secretary of State for International Trade about the trans-Pacific partnership and the risks to the NHS. She said that there is no risk that the NHS is on the table. However, if that is not explicitly written into the Bill, we run the risk of it being missed out and changed through negative ways of doing trade deals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I thought, Sir Graham, that as a Manchester MP, you would enjoy that story.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central made an impressive oration, and had an impressive memory of our oral evidence earlier. He made some good general points on procurement. Alas, not all were relevant to the government procurement agreement, but let me try to deal with a few of them. First, he mentioned the EU public contracts regulations expiring in 2020; they date from 2015. To be clear, they will not expire in the UK; they are preserved in preserved EU law under the EU withdrawal agreement.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman made comments about small business, and it is important to emphasise that the Federation of Small Businesses is absolutely right behind our GPA accession. It says that it is essential for the UK to become an independent member of the GPA; it will allow small businesses to have continued access to Government contracts and procurement opportunities.

Let me deal with the specific comments on procurement by the hon. Members for Warrington North, for Harrow West, for Warwick and Leamington and others. I was interested—in fact, I was shocked—to hear what they had to say about alleged discrimination faced by companies that they had reported. I was also shocked at the slight implication that the Opposition had some kind of monopoly on this Committee over northern voices. I looked around and counted more midlands and northern MPs on the Government Benches than on the Opposition Benches, so I thought that that was a bit unwarranted. On a serious note, I would be very interested in seeing significant evidence of discrimination. I will certainly get the Government to investigate those reports and I will copy the response to the whole Committee.

Overall, these amendments would be unhelpful. Each time there was a change to the UK schedule, we would have to produce the four reports. Let me give an example. The current schedule is through our membership of the EU. The EU schedule, which was last updated before 2010, includes names of Government Departments that no longer exist. I think the old BERR—Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform—is on the list. DCMS is obviously the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Every time we made one of those changes—if, for example, we changed DCMS back to its previous name—we would have to produce, as I understand it, the four reports and enter into negotiations, which would simply be an unrealistic and wasteful use of the Government’s time.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central talked a bit about a lowering of standards. To be absolutely clear, we are joining the GPA on the same terms as our current membership, so we are not reducing standards. The EU withdrawal Act preserves existing standards, and of course we already exceed or greatly exceed many EU standards in these spaces. The fact that we have rolled over continuity agreements demonstrates exactly that there has been no lowering of standards.

The hon. Member for Putney made a comprehensive maiden speech for a Bill Committee. As a constituency neighbour, I was delighted to hear her praise for Wandsworth Council. That is a fantastic thing. It is a very, very well-run local authority. She complained about the poor air quality on Putney High Street. If only the Labour council on the other side of the river, in Hammersmith and Fulham, could even monitor its air quality in the first place. Of course, one cause of the deterioration in air quality is Hammersmith and Fulham Council’s closure of Hammersmith bridge, so perhaps if she could join the lobby to reopen Hammersmith bridge, she would then realise that there is better air quality to be delivered on Putney High Street.

[Fleur Anderson]

Just to clarify, the air quality in Putney High Street was dreadful before the unfortunate closure of the beautiful Hammersmith bridge, due to years of neglect under previous administrations, so that is not the reason; it has been a long-term issue.

[Greg Hands]

I accept that, but the additional 4,000 cars a day going over Putney bridge into the hon. Lady’s constituency as a result of the closure of Hammersmith bridge has certainly not improved air quality—shall we put it that way?

The hon. Lady raised concerns and, I think, quoted the TUC in relation to continuity agreements with South Korea and Colombia. It is worth pointing out that both those agreements have been rolled over with largely identical wording on labour provision and workers’ rights, so those concerns are not valid. The UK takes labour rights extremely seriously, of course, and UK legislation already provides for robust measures to tackle such issues as human trafficking. Continued GPA membership will not affect that.

In September 2019, the Government announced new measures designed to ensure that Government supply chains are free from offences of slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour and human trafficking. The hon. Member for Harrow West, in what I think was an impromptu speech, made some good points on co-operatives. I am delighted to see that on this side of the aisle, we immediately trounced him with the commitment to co-operatives from my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble, for Arundel and South Downs and for North East Derbyshire.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession)

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

There is no greater supporter of East Anglian infrastructure than me.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

My constituents in Putney are very worried about the implications of the partnership and all the Brexit agreements for the NHS. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the NHS and other key public services will not be opened up to competition under the negative list system in the trans-Pacific partnership?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The NHS is not on the table. The price the NHS pays for drugs is not on the table.

Trade Deals and Fair Trade

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Do you agree with me—I think you do, from what you said earlier about dumping and the issues faced by developing countries—that the new deals must not erode the hard-fought preferences given to countries in the global south? There is a real danger that the new trade agreements that are brokered with other trading blocs will not be in those countries’ development interests. We need further public and Government scrutiny of those deals so we can be assured that that will not happen.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I recognise that the hon. Lady is a new Member, but if she says “you”, she is referring to me, and I do not have a view on this. It is an easy mistake to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

Despite that indiscretion, it is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. You are certainly not the first person to make that mistake and I doubt you will be the last.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing this important and timely debate, to which I will make a short contribution as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Fairtrade. I offer my sincere apologies that due to Select Committee commitments, I am unlikely to be present for the contributions of Front-Bench Members.

At our annual Fairtrade reception two weeks ago, Rosine, a cocoa producer from Côte d’Ivoire, shared information about what fair trade means for her and how it has transformed her life and the lives of her family and workers in a region where a typical farmer earns just 75p a day. Hon. Members who came to support the event—we had a record number of people through the door, including more than 100 MPs—will have understood the power of what she shared and the value of fair trade.

The debate is timely not only because of Fairtrade fortnight, but because we as a country are embarking on probably the single biggest shake-up of our trading arrangements in modern times. Without a strong sense of trade justice and fairness at the heart of that process, we may make quick wins here and there, but they will be to the detriment of some of the world’s most vulnerable people. As we transition away from our membership of the EU, we will be looking to negotiate with the larger, stronger economies first, and having a close eye on existing market access for developing countries must be a priority as we go through that process. With that in mind, I call on the Government to consider the impact of any proposed changes to our international development aspirations. Without the right scrutiny, our ambition to get bilateral trade deals done may have a detrimental impact on other smaller and more vulnerable exporters, undercutting and marginalising Fairtrade producers.

There could be some positive opportunities for Fairtrade within proposed changes to the tariff schedules and agreed continuity of preferences within trade deals after 2021, but without proper impact assessments that focus on potential unintended consequences, there could be significant impacts on market access for developing countries, which will affect Fairtrade products and producers. I welcome the news that the Government have committed to the roll-over preferences currently granted to developing and low-income countries by the EU, but I understand that several countries that currently have preferential access via the EU have not yet agreed continuity arrangements with the UK; they include Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya and Cameroon. I hope that the Government are in a position to update the House on that before too long.

My anxiety is that in our haste to sign off bilateral trade deals, we will approach the agreements as a means of securing quick wins for the UK and neglect to see them as the journey through which we can unlock the potential of farmers and producers across the developing world, satisfying our international development aspirations at the same time—resulting in a fair deal for all of us, if we get this right.

[Fleur Anderson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hugely worrying that investor-state dispute settlements were not ruled out in the Government’s objectives for the US and EU trade agreements? Those mechanisms hugely undermine nations’ sovereignty and the hard-won rights and regulations she is discussing?

[Holly Lynch]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want accountable methods of making sure that fairness runs through those trade deals, and we have to explore any and all opportunities to do that. Impact assessments are one of the ways of getting to that position, and the Government should take those issues into account, with an eye firmly on gender, inequality, pay and labour rights.

I pay tribute to some of the Fairtrade heroes we have in Halifax. When I first became a Member of Parliament, I was determined to make sure Halifax became a Fairtrade town; it was thanks to some wonderful people who had already been doing some great work promoting Fairtrade over a number of years that I was able to pull all that together to secure Fairtrade town status, which we have now had for three years.

Across Fairtrade fortnight we have had a number of activities. The brilliant fairandfunky have been in to deliver our annual Fairtrade schools conference at Halifax Minster. Just this weekend, the Albany Arcade at Halifax borough market hosted an exhibition of entries for our school poetry and poster competition. We had recipes and amazing samples of Fairtrade tiffin to try, made by Jane Simmons, and we had the absolute Fairtrade legends, Clive and Kay Holmes, who have been championing Fairtrade for years, holding stalls, making products available and sharing information. You could not meet two more wonderful people, entirely motivated by trade justice and fairness. I thank Ash Green primary school, Salterhebble, Warley Road and St Joseph’s for really getting behind the poster competition. The staff do an enormous amount of work in their schools promoting Fairtrade to their young people.

It would be remiss of me not to say that the APPG is always recruiting and always active; I encourage any and all MPs who are motivated by these issues to come along and get involved. As those trade deals come back to the UK Parliament for discussion, we will have to start doing some of the heavy lifting on scrutiny, in addition to the grassroots campaigning work that we have undertaken as the APPG up until now.

I apologise again that I will not be able to stay for the end of the debate.

Global Britain

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the eve of our departure from the EU. I congratulate the many Members who have spoken. I say to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), who is just leaving, that we share many things. Although we do not share a party, we share a surname; we share the experience of spending time in Bosnia; we share a faith; and we share a commitment to social justice, which was wonderful to hear about. His speech was very brave and very moving, and I thank him for it.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) on his speech and on the birth of his new baby. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) on a lively, engaging and passionate speech, and I congratulate my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), on her speech, which covered so many issues that are important for our constituents and local residents, but also for our place in Britain and the world.

Global Britain is important to the residents of Putney, Southfields and Roehampton. More than one in 10 residents are from other EU countries, and many more are from other countries around the world. As a constituency, we feel global and outward facing, so I am glad to hear many references to Britain being an outward-facing country even though we are leaving the EU.

I would like to distance myself from the scenes of the Brexit party waving their flags in the European Parliament yesterday. I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for mentioning that this should be a time of kindness, and for the acknowledgement that some Members and residents feel sorrow at this time. I welcome his comments about healing our divisions, and I hope that we will share more such sentiments across the House. Many Members and residents in Putney feel that what is going to happen tomorrow is an act of self-harm. We hope that we will see better times, but we are feeling sad at the moment. I associate myself with the comments of the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, who said:

“We will always love you”.

We will always love the EU, working closely together but in a different way, from tomorrow onwards.

Global Britain should not just be about enhancing the UK’s international prestige and influence on the world stage. A global Britain in 2020 needs to defend multilateralism and the rules-based international order from the threats posed by those who seek to refine them. We need to promote our core values and not use the act of distancing ourselves from protectionism as an excuse to move away from our values of human rights, democracy and environmental sustainability. We must not detach our discussions about global Britain from trade, trade democracy, trade justice and our leading role in international development and the achievement of the sustainable development goals. I want to focus on those areas.

On current evidence, the Government’s approach to trade does not take seriously our global responsibility to tackle the imminent threat of climate change, to defend human rights and to ensure trade democracy and transparency. Removing child refugee rights from the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill was not a good start, and I think doing so sent the wrong signals to the world. We have yet to see what will come up in the immigration Bill. I know that the Government say that that subject will be dealt with in the Bill, and I want to be optimistic. It is in that vein, and following that thread, that I will make my following comments.

I am concerned about our post-Brexit trade objectives. We still have next to no information on the Government’s trade objectives after Brexit. Despite repeated calls from organisations such as the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Trade Justice Movement, there has yet to be a sustainability impact assessment of post-Brexit trade deals, or any indication of how the Government see trade policy tying in to the broader industrial strategy and to environmental and social objectives. We have been given no clear indication of what the process will be for parliamentary scrutiny of post-Brexit trade deals.

There is already a huge democratic deficit in what is one of the most important processes in our country’s history. Future trade deals with the US leave us exposed to the risk of products being sold here that have been produced in the US under less environmentally friendly practices. We must take this opportunity to level up our game and not give in to a race to the bottom.

In a few weeks’ time the Government will attempt to roll the EU-Morocco association agreement over into UK legislation, despite widespread concerns about the ongoing Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara and the human rights of the Sahrawi people. Again, the Government are seeking to roll it over with as little scrutiny as possible. This is another example of trade agreements putting economic opportunism above human rights and international law. Is this what we want global Britain to look like? This cannot be the outcome of free trade.

What needs to be done? First, on fair trade, the Government need to work with organisations such as the Fairtrade Foundation and civil society organisations, co-operatives and trade unions to ensure a fair trade Brexit. For instance, future trade policy should ensure that economically vulnerable people do not find themselves paying new import duties on their sales to the UK; assess the impact on poorer countries of trade deals struck with wealthier countries; and make it easier for developing countries to sell their high-value products, not just base products, to the UK. We should also ensure that our trade policies are in line with our commitments to the sustainable development goals.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. She has mentioned co-operatives and linking economic and social justice. On microfinance in Bangladesh, Muhammad Yunus’s Grameen bank helps women in particular to get start-up loans for businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that such initiatives are a way forward and that our Government should engage more positively with them?

[Fleur Anderson]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I have spoken to women in Bangladesh about ways in which trading policies can be fair. Even those with very small incomes can engage in the global trading system. If we make that our aim and goal, it can be done right from the start.

My second point is that the Department for International Development should be kept as an independent Department. This is a very live issue at the moment. It should not be merged with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Working together, the FCO and DFID give us significant clout globally, which we are in danger of diluting if we merge the two Departments. DFID is considered one of the most effective aid agencies in the world, saving lives through health, immunisation, water, sanitation, education and climate programmes, and by empowering communities to do that. This must be led by a Secretary of State with permanent Cabinet representation and a place on the National Security Council.

We should also increase our environmental commitments to achieve a net zero future. Our now independent membership of the World Trade Organisation and our hosting of COP26 later this year provide a massive opportunity—I want to be as optimistic as I can about leaving the EU—to take global leadership of environmental trade policy and to outdo the EU in the implementation of environmental standards. However, that has to begin with getting our own ship in order. We need to take a more joined-up departmental approach to trade and climate change, and end the culture of siloism. We need to undertake environmental, gender and climate impact assessments before entering trade negotiations, which is why we as a House need to know what is going on in those negotiations. All too often, free trade can have a significant, detrimental impact on women in particular, which is why I mentioned gender impact assessments. We should ensure that all stipulations in future trade agreements are designed to meet our own climate and environmental targets, and we should seek legally binding climate commitments in trade deals, rather than too often ineffective environmental chapters.

Trade deals should also be subject to increased scrutiny, as the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), has said. The Government seem to be making every effort to avoid proper debate on and scrutiny of our trade deals, and they are completely opaque in their objectives. They are hiding. The entire process needs to be reformed and subject to proper oversight, if our trade policy is going to reflect the sort of global Britain that we all want.

Tomorrow we leave the European Union and its regulatory framework. With the Chancellor already having confirmed that there will be no alignment with EU regulations, global Britain is now being defined in our trade and development policies. Are we prepared to enter into trade deals with regimes such as that of President Bolsonaro, who has pursued an aggressive policy on environmental deregulation, for which the Amazon has paid the price? Are we going to continue selling arms to human rights abusers and states violating international humanitarian law? Are we going to continue to let UK-based companies divert rivers and destroy indigenous communities in their own overseas operations? This cannot be the kind of global Britain we want to see.

To conclude, Brexit, tackling global poverty, achieving the sustainable development goals and taking urgent action on the climate crisis all bring huge challenges, but we must meet them with a very British commitment to fairness, by protecting rights and promoting peace, justice, equality, sustainability and prosperity in all that we do on the global stage.