Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Eustice and Seema Malhotra

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to protect British food production standards in trade deals.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We have a manifesto commitment that, in all our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental, animal welfare and food standards. We have retained in law our existing standards of protection. We have laid before the House our negotiating objectives, stating that we will uphold those, and we most recently established the Trade and Agriculture Commission.

[Seema Malhotra]

Many of my constituents, including Nimmi Soni, have written to me with their concerns about the Government’s commitment to protecting food standards. The Secretary of State is right that his party’s manifesto promised not to compromise on food standards in trade deals, but twice—twice—the Government have refused to support Labour amendments to put that into law. If over 70% of people do not want us selling food imported from countries with lower food standards, and more than 1 million people have signed a National Farmers Union petition for British food standards to be put into law, why are the Government refusing to do what the public want and expect? The country has a right to know.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between George Eustice and Seema Malhotra

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Yes, but it does so through a Bill and it gives the Prime Minister the opportunity to make her case to Parliament, but without any constraint on that at all. Given that this is a very novel legal approach—a rushed piece of legislation, with a Bill being driven through the House in one day—we should be cautious about the scope we attach to that Bill. Attaching an ability to go for a very long extension of several years—potentially five years if Parliament decided that is what it wanted—is worthy of further deliberation.

[Seema Malhotra]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s perspective on the politics of this and the policy outcome, which would be a limit of 30 June in terms of what this Bill could achieve. I want to clarify something with him, because my interpretation of his amendment is more in line with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Amendment 20 would put a date of

“no later than 30 June 2019”

in clause 1(3). It seems to me that that is superseded by subsection (5), and if the hon. Gentleman wanted to achieve his intended outcome he should have tabled a further amendment, proposing another date in subsection (5). He has not done that, so it would override and be able to amend a date in a motion tabled under subsection (2).

[George Eustice]

I strongly disagree with the hon. Lady’s reading, as subsection (3) sets out the terms in which anything can be offered under subsection (2) and amendment 20 places a clear limit in subsection (3) of 30 June. Subsection (5) then says:

“If the motion in the form set out in subsection (2) for the purposes of subsection (1) is agreed to with an amendment to change the date”

and so on. The issue I have is that subsection (3) says that the date has a time limit, so it would not be legally possibly under subsection (2) to have a date that contradicted the requirements set out in subsection (3). That is my contention and I disagree with the hon. Lady. If she and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central were right, they would not have had subsection (3) at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is why, given the rushed nature of the Bill—we all understand the reasons for that—it is necessary to place constraints on the scope of its operation, to limit precisely the kind of financial liabilities to which he alludes.

My contention is that any suggestion of a longer extension beyond 30 June, perhaps to 21 months, two years or even longer, should surely be the subject of another Bill. After all, we have demonstrated today that we can introduce Bills of this sort in short order. If the future of this House is to be that any decisions of this sort require a Bill, and that one can be delivered with a day’s debate on the Floor of the House, surely it is right to constrain and restrict the scope of this Bill to delivering us through this immediate crisis—without doubt, this is a crisis—but nevertheless to keep open the option for the House to consider a longer extension if it wished to do so.

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in accepting interventions. I fear that the interpretation of his amendment is not what he intends. This is not about the rights or wrongs of the date, but what his amendment seems to do, which is to put a cap and an end date on what the Prime Minister may put to the House, but not on an amendment to her motion that the House could seek. That is the difference between subsections (3) and (5).