Arms Export Licences (Saudi Arabia)

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman asked me first about the process that took place within government. The answer is that the joint unit is staffed by officials from the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Trade, and clearly there was a failing when it came to sharing information across government. A director general of the Department for Work and Pensions is conducting an investigation to look precisely at the question of which Department issued, or did not issue, the information and how it was shared. The results of that investigation will be put forward in due course. This is a complex area. The Export Control Joint Unit approves approximately 16,000 licences a year, so it is important that we get this right and do not rush to an answer before we are ready.

Regarding the consolidated criteria on licensing, it is also important that we adhere to the terms of our undertaking to the Court and our statement to Parliament, and I was talking earlier specifically about breaches of our undertaking to the Court and our statement to Parliament.

[Sir George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

This is clearly a matter of serious moment. I welcome the tone that the Secretary of State has taken today and, indeed, her admission that things have not gone right. Can she assure me of two things: first, that there is a full and complete investigation going on, which I think she has already mentioned; and secondly, that the aim of the investigation will not just be to find out how this situation happened, but to ensure that it cannot happen again?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have put in place an interim procedure to ensure that there is sign-off from senior officials in all three relevant Departments and ministerial sign-off on any proposed export licences to the relevant parties. I also assure him that we are conducting an investigation, which will be led by a director general from the Department for Work and Pensions, into exactly what went wrong in this case to ensure that it cannot happen again.

NHS and Future Trade Deals

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for opening the debate and representing the more than 160,000 petitioners who put their signatures to the document.

It is clear that the NHS is something that all of us here and the public as a whole care deeply about. There can be no doubt about that. We have heard and seen it in many forums before and we know it is true. However, I want to set this out right at the start, because I do not want there to be any room at all for ambiguity: I guarantee the House that the Government will protect the NHS in trade negotiations. That means no requirement to increase private provision, no allowing American companies to ramp up drug prices, and no undermining the safeguards on healthcare data. That is a guarantee that I, the Secretary of State and many others have repeated on many different occasions—most recently, when I appeared before the International Trade Committee last week and said the self-same thing there.

The NHS is an excellent healthcare system. It tops the Commonwealth Fund’s rankings of the best healthcare systems in the world. More than that, it is there for all of us when we need it the most. Those are not just words. Many of us—probably all of us—have an “NHS story” to tell of a time when the NHS helped us or those we love. I am afraid that mine is a story of when the NHS could not be there for someone.

I am married to an American. My brother-in-law could not afford proper healthcare for his illness because his insurance broker made the mistake of not renewing his health insurance for one week. There was one week’s gap, and in that one week he was diagnosed with a brain tumour and was thus both uninsured and uninsurable. I do not particularly want to elaborate on all that the family went through and faced over the next three years of his life, but it was pretty miserable. I was convinced before that it was only civilised to have the sort of system that we have here in the UK, and that experience did nothing but reinforce that view. It is simply not civilised not to provide healthcare for our citizens when we can afford to do so. The US health system is one where even those with insurance can never be sure whether their insurance will pay out; where insurance policies can often be limited in extent, condemning families to penury even when they started with quite a lot; where people with insurance routinely do not seek help at all because of the excess policies and where those who cannot afford to cover themselves are left to depend entirely on charity at best, or at worst are wholly abandoned.

As hon. Members might imagine, I want to protect the NHS and so do this Government. I cannot imagine a Government who would not want to do so. I have also called both campaigns today to make absolutely certain that the candidates whose names are on the ballot paper for leadership of the Conservative party also agree with that position—just to be 100% sure. Of course, they do both take that position.

Even if there ever were a proposal to pursue such a course, I think we in this room all know that, quite rightly, the British people simply would not have it. More than 160,000 people signed the petition that we are discussing today, and only last year a YouGov poll found that more than two thirds of people thought the NHS was Britain’s greatest achievement. Given that strength of feeling, why would this or any future Government who purported to represent the people use trade deals as some kind of back door to privatise the NHS? It just does not make any sense in anybody’s language. Even if a Government tried to do so, how would a trade deal get through Parliament? Not only could it not be ratified without scrutiny by Parliament, but there is separation between international and domestic law in our constitution, so any changes made to the NHS through a trade deal would need domestic implementing legislation, not just in England, but in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. There is no back door here to sidestep Parliament. So much would have to change in our domestic legislation, and I cannot see any way—even if a Government were to decide they wanted to do things that way—that it could actually happen. The good news is that nobody has any intention to use free trade deals in that way anyway.

I simply ask that we agree that there is no prospect whatever of any British Government of any colour or flavour seeking to privatise the NHS by the back door. Can we please put that one to bed? There are perfectly legitimate reasons to discuss issues around the NHS, which I will come to in a moment, but let us please stop scaremongering and pretending that the Government are about to try to privatise the NHS. It is not going to happen.

So what about the particulars? How we protect our public services in trade deals is well known. We already have multiple layers of protection around the NHS and all our public services. The WTO’s general agreement on trade in services explicitly exempts services that are

“supplied in the exercise of governmental authority”.

The trade in services aspects of all agreements to which the UK is currently a party explicitly set out exceptions and reservations for public services. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) pointed out that Cecilia Malmström, the Trade Commissioner for the European Union, issued a letter at the time of TTIP making that absolutely crystal clear to anybody who wished to read it. She said that people could object to any number of things about TTIP in all sorts of ways, but the one thing they could not do was pretend that this was a way for US health interests to take over publicly provided health services in the European Union. It plainly was not.

No trade agreement has ever affected our ability to keep our public services public, and no one has ever forced us to change the way we run them. The Nuffield Trust, which is one of the most respected commentators on healthcare in the UK, has pointed out that:

“A trade deal would not have the power to stop the NHS being a free, universal service.”

I think it was the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who is no longer in her place, who made a point on section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The Act was not about privatisation, but about placing the financial power to change health services in the hands of the NHS professionals whom the public trust most, and putting clinicians, rather than politicians, in control of healthcare. The 2012 Act did not introduce competition into the NHS; previous Governments introduced competition as a core part of their earlier reforms. The Act established a level playing field in which any qualified provider can provide NHS-funded services, to encourage greater diversity in supply and improve patient choice.

I ask Members to consider for a moment where they think NHS procurement and provision finishes and starts. I cannot imagine a world where we would not buy our pharmaceuticals from the private sector. There is no Government in the world—other than perhaps the Cuban Government—who design pharmaceuticals. Is it suggested that outsourcing accounting is somehow a bad idea? How different can accounting for the NHS be, honestly? What about building hospitals? Does that have to be done by the NHS? What about the equipment used in operating theatres? Does it have to be provided by the NHS? I think we all know that there are areas where it makes sense for the private sector to be involved.

Like the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have no particular interest in the private sector providing actual straightforward healthcare. There are some cases where even that seems sensible. Perhaps if there is not capacity in a certain area of expertise and the capacity exits outside, it might be right to commission it. I think we can all agree that there are some areas around the national health service where there will always be provision by the private sector, because that simply makes more sense.

It is said that investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms would allow foreign firms to take the UK to court for not opening the NHS up to further competition. That, of course, is a concern, but it is not the truth. Let us be clear: ISDS does not and cannot force the privatisation of public services. The mechanisms only provide protection for established investments that companies have made in a partner’s market. At the end of 2017, UK businesses and investors of all sorts had around £1.3 trillion invested around the world, so those protections can be crucial, particularly where legal jurisdictions are perhaps a little less rigorous than they are here.

[Catherine West]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Does he agree that there are precedents where companies, such as tobacco companies, have taken elected Governments to court and wasted, in private courts, a lot of money that could have been spent on public services, and that that is a serious dent in democracy as we know it?

[George Hollingbery]

The hon. Lady anticipates exactly the section of my speech that I am about to come on to.

I was talking about the £1.3 trillion invested overseas and the fact that ISDS arrangements are incredibly useful in guaranteeing the delivery of justice of some sort for those who have invested under certain terms in less certain legal markets. However, they cannot force the UK to change the way we run our public services. The proof of that—I hope that this will answer the hon. Lady’s question—is in the results. The UK has more than 90 bilateral investment treaties in place, yet there has never been a single successful ISDS claim against the UK Government on any issue. Nor has the threat of potential claims affected the Government’s legislative programme. I therefore do not believe that there is a chilling effect. The UK Government have legislated exactly as they wished on every issue, despite those 90 bilateral investment treaties.

That is not to say that bringing services that have already been opened up to private providers back into public ownership might not lead to challenges. That is true, and we should not sit in the Chamber today and not admit it. Of course, that does not necessarily rely on ISDS agreements. In the UK we have perfectly competent courts, and I suspect that many people might pursue those issues through the regular courts under contract law. However, ISDS indeed provides another avenue. Even the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), recognises that compensation would have to be offered if any fairly let contracts were not honoured because of a change in policy. That much is clear, and we have heard him say so directly. However, that is wholly different from being able to force the private letting of contracts that a state wants to remain public. That cannot happen under any ISDS arrangement.

Another concern that has raised its head today is medicine costs, and the idea that a trade deal with the United States would raise the cost of medicines the NHS needs. Across all nations of the UK, we have an excellent set of systems that generate great outcomes for patients at an affordable price. We are proud of the way we assess the value of and agree commercial deals for medicines here in the UK‎, which is good for the NHS, for patients, and for companies that want to do business with us. We are absolutely clear that in any future negotiations we could not agree to any proposals on medicines pricing or access that would put NHS finances at risk or reduce clinician and patient choice—and what on earth would the incentive be? We have a system in place that works, ensuring that patients have access to medicines they need at prices that are affordable to the NHS. That is in the best interests of patients in the UK.

It is simply not a matter for the UK that the US is a highly fragmented market for pharmaceuticals and medical equipment, and so has reduced buying power. Neither is that issue a matter to be contemplated in any potential trade deal. There is no protectionism here; it is simply a matter of market power. Ultimately, it is a matter for US domestic politics. If the US takes a different route, it will have more buying power. We have taken a different route, and we have much more buying power. I can think of a thousand different markets where the US has much larger buying power than us. Are we supposed to petition it suddenly in a US trade agreement to bargain away its buying power? I do not think so, and I do not see why it should be any different in this case.

Some people—not in this debate, but it is worth dealing with, as there has been so much interest in the debate, in terms of the number of signatories to the petition —have raised the related issues of patent protection, extensions and generics. There is a complex web of interactions around those issues. On the one hand, there is a need to allow innovation in pharmaceutical and medical technology research and, on the other, there is a need to ensure that when patents expire—I nearly said “when patients expire”; forgive me—generic or bio-similar alternatives are quickly brought to market. We will seek to balance those as we always have, in a way that stimulates research and innovation, together with the cost of supplying healthcare free at the point of use in the UK.

Let me turn to concerns about the potential use of NHS data. The Government take seriously the use and sharing of that data. I reiterate what the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said recently:

“NHS data must always be held securely, with the appropriate and proper strong privacy and cyber-security protections.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2019; Vol. 662, c. 114.]

The Government will ensure that trade negotiations do not undermine the safeguards that we have in place around health and care data. Those safeguards allow the public to have trust in how and why their data is used, and it is incredibly important that we maintain them.

To be clear, free trade agreements of course have a role in data. At the Department for International Trade, we are tasked with ensuring that data flows on a legal, safe and secure basis. We would seek to review any rules in place to safeguard data, such as data localisation requirements, and ensure that they are not overly protectionist. However, that should not be confused with the data that actually flows. We set up the pipework, but whether or not the taps are turned on is a matter for the regulators. In our case, that is the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is entirely clear about the need for privacy and cyber-security.

I will deal with one or two other issues that were raised that do not fit neatly into the categories in my written speech. First, on FTA scrutiny, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) will know full well that we laid a Command Paper earlier this year that made a full and generous offer on scrutiny. I am well aware of her party’s position on scrutiny, and I absolutely agree with her and her Front-Bench colleagues on the need for real transparency on and scrutiny of free trade deals. I absolutely understand about the incentives to control every part of the passage through Parliament by votes. I would happily sit down with her at some stage and talk through why I think that is perhaps not deliverable, and perhaps not exactly what she wants.

I am clear that we must have responsible scrutiny, and that the Government must be as transparent as they can under the auspices of an FTA. When negotiating an FTA, plainly there are things that we cannot reveal in public; otherwise, we simply give away any negotiating advantage we might have. At the same time, there needs to be accountability to Parliament. I therefore think we are largely of one mind, at least on the principle, if not the actual solution.

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) chose very carefully the two examples he gave—Norway and Switzerland. They, of course, are two free trade agreements that the EU has with partners that have very close arrangements with it in any event, in other ways. It is precisely because of the relationships that they have with the European Union that they cannot match in a continuity agreement what they can match in an agreement with the EU. The fact that those agreements are not as comprehensive as they might be is a consequence of our leaving the European Union, not of our inability to negotiate or, somehow, a failure on the part of the Government. I think we have achieved remarkable amounts, given the circumstances that Switzerland and particularly the EEA countries face.

I shall comment briefly on positive and negative lists, ratchets and so forth. In the end, having taken advice and listened to arguments from officials one way and the other, I have to say that, on the whole, it does not matter a great deal whether the list is positive or negative; the only thing that matters is that it is right, so that the outcomes—what the agreements actually achieve—are precisely what the UK wants. We can either include everything on the list and strike bits out, or exclude everything from the list and allow things in, but it seems to me that in the end that is a nice distinction, in the legal sense, and that actually what matters is the effect when we have finished. This is something that people talk about a great deal. In the end, all I want to do is ensure that we actually get the outputs that we need.

I hope we can agree that the picture is at least slightly rosier now than when this debate started. The legal protections are there to provide robust protection for the national health service. The commitment from the Government is there to ensure that that remains the case. The opportunities are there for us to make the most of our world-class experience and expertise in healthcare and the life sciences. As we look back at all the NHS has given us—particularly after its 70th birthday last year—we can be hugely proud of our past, but we can also be extremely optimistic about our future on the global stage.

I shall finish by repeating what I said earlier. This Government, the two candidates for the leadership, the outgoing Prime Minister and, indeed, all of us on the Government Benches are clear that we have no interest in privatising the national health service. We do not want to use free trade deals to do that either. We understand the concerns of the petitioners, and I hope very much that what I have set out today gives some reassurance.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

8. What recent progress the Government have made on implementing its export strategy.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

This summer marks three years since the DIT was established and one year since the publication of the Department’s export strategy, which sets out how the Government will encourage, inform, connect and finance UK businesses to take advantage of the international demand for British goods and services. Last month, we announced a new package of financial support from UK Export Finance to help businesses, and small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, to do just that.

[Peter Aldous]

Does the Department’s export strategy make provision for promoting the expertise of British business in the emerging markets of offshore wind and the late-life decarbonising management and decommissioning of oil and gas fields?

[George Hollingbery]

Yes, the offshore wind sector deal announced earlier this year will support UK companies to seize the export opportunities generated by the rapidly expanding market. The DIT is working with markets such as Taiwan, with which I recently hosted an offshore wind roundtable last month, to support their engagement with the UK supply chain. On oil and gas production, the DIT is engaging with the industry and stakeholders on export opportunities across the full industrial lifecycle.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

We have already heard that our trade agreements with the EU amount to about 11% of our trade, which is significant. Will my hon. Friend update the House on where he expects to have got with rolling over all the existing trade agreements by the time we are able to make our own independent trade policy?

[George Hollingbery]

Since the Department’s formation three years ago, the DIT has grown its trade negotiating capability from a standing start to a fully trained core of specialists. That has allowed us to negotiate the transition of EU free trade agreements, representing almost two thirds of trade covered by these agreements, and we continue to work intensively on the balance.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What is the Secretary of State doing in relation to manufacturing in the west midlands, which has the Jaguar Land Rover and black cab companies, to increase their exports given the market has had a slight downturn as a result of Trump’s sanctions on China?

[George Hollingbery]

Of course, Jaguar Land Rover remains an extraordinarily important company to the UK. It has faced some challenges recently, but the announcement of the new electrification programme in the west midlands is extremely welcome. As the hon. Gentleman might expect, the DIT has been very heavily involved in that process.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

But what has the DIT been doing through its export strategy about the automotive sector in Wales and in particular in Bridgend, with the announcement that Ford will close the engine plant? What can the Department do to try to persuade Ford to change its mind about this and to ensure that we have a thriving export sector?

[George Hollingbery]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been very heavily involved with Ford at Bridgend; in the end this is a matter for the company itself, but I have no doubt that BEIS has had productive conversations with it. The DIT is, along with BEIS, investing very large amounts of money across Government in electrification and the automotive market of the future. That involves huge amounts put into research and development at universities, and we believe that will put the UK car industry in a very good position for the future.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in the US Administration on trade and investment between the UK and the US; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T2. Can market access agreements be even more important than free trade agreements?

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are some huge opportunities in market access. Indeed, we have identified one potential change in China that, if negotiated, might be worth £10 billion of turnover over a considerable period through one regulation alone. Resources at the Department at the moment are necessarily skewed towards FTAs, because of the trade agreement continuity process, but they will in due course shift towards market access, which is terribly important.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

T3. Can the Secretary of State explain what his Department is doing to encourage the EU and US to resolve the Airbus and Boeing subsidies dispute without resorting to tariff retaliation in unrelated sectors, including UK agri-food products?

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

T4. As South Korea is the third largest export market for ceramics, does the Secretary of State agree that the recently signed outline free trade agreement with South Korea is a huge boost for the ceramics industry?

[George Hollingbery]

The transition agreement will replicate the effects of the preferential market access in the existing EU-South Korea FTA, providing certainty for businesses and allowing them to continue trading on preferential terms. It will provide a firm basis for the further strengthening of our ambitious trade and investment relationship as we work together in future.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

T6. The Secretary of State promised this House that all bilateral trade deals between the EU and other countries would be rolled over by 29 March, including a bilateral trade deal with the EU itself. How many will be done by 31 October?

[George Hollingbery]

I could just ask the hon. Gentleman to look up the answer that I gave a few moments ago. We have signed roughly two thirds of the deals already and we expect there to be more. As for the number, it is well over 50%, and a large number of the countries in there are agglomerated into blocs, but we are confident in terms of trade that we will have two thirds or thereabouts.

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

T5. The Secretary of State rightly said that we will need an agreement with the EU to allow a GATT 24 basic deal to apply, but does he not accept that GATT 24 and a temporary FTA would save the EU £13 billion in tariffs and the UK just £5 billion, so the EU has every incentive to back it?

Oral Answers to Questions

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to tackle climate change through trade policy.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

The UK has long supported the promotion of our values globally, including ambitious global action to tackle climate change, and this will continue. We are exploring all options in the design of future trade policy, including how to tackle climate change. We are working to realise the potential for low-carbon exports from the UK and supporting UK jobs.

[Deidre Brock]

While the Department for International Development has a clear strategy for promoting low-carbon development in low-income countries, fossil fuels made up a shocking 99.4% of UK Export Finance’s energy support to low and middle-income countries in the last financial year. Does the Secretary of State agree with the International Development Committee’s finding that his Department’s spending is

“damaging the coherence of the Government’s approach to combating climate change”,

and what steps has he taken to ensure a more joined-up approach among his Cabinet colleagues?

[George Hollingbery]

The UK has an enviable record of success in decarbonisation. A target will be agreed of an 80% reduction by 2050; renewable capacity is up four times since 2010; and there will be £10 billion in annual support by 2021. Expertise is being built in offshore, smart energy, sustainable construction, precision agriculture, green finance, electric vehicles and so on. As I travel around the world, I meet many representatives from developing countries who are interested in all these technologies. Our trade policy is focused absolutely on ensuring that our exporters are set up to spread this green technology around the world. UKEF will play its part in funding this global revolution. In the short term, I have no doubt that some fossil fuel investments will be made, but as we progress that will transform into low-carbon development.

[Martyn Day]

The Secretary of State has previously stated that

“poverty reduction objectives are deemed to outweigh the impact on climate change.”

However, his colleague the Secretary of State for International Development has previously stated that unless we tackle climate change with the urgency it requires “100 million more people” will be thrown “into poverty”. Can the Minister confirm who is correct and what the Government position actually is?

[George Hollingbery]

Certainly from the Department for International Trade point of view, our job is to promote international trade. We are out there making sure that the deals we do internationally suit those countries with which we do them. We are bringing in the unilateral preferences that are transitioning across from a European perspective. We are confident that the backing we can give developing countries is suitable for their circumstances, and allows them to participate in world trade and so bring their people out of poverty.

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

I think we are spending £1.5 billion in the current period on climate change for less-developed nations, and the same amount—£1.5 billion—on promoting economic development and trade, so there is some synergy for us to work with, is there not?

[George Hollingbery]

There absolutely is. As we grow our capacity in this country, we have more capability of exporting and, indeed, advising others on climate change. Yes, we can work in countries on poverty reduction at the same time as promoting energy sustainability.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Will the Minister say a bit more in relation to climate change and trade policy, particularly vis-à-vis the US, because the President of the United States has said:

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive”?

[George Hollingbery]

The recent chapters in CETA— the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement—and the EU agreements with Japan, Singapore and Vietnam include quite clear climate change commitments. We are of course signatories to the Paris agreement. I recognise that the President of the United States has said it is going to withdraw from that; it has currently not done so. Where it is possible to have chapters in our free trade agreements on climate change and on our climate change policies, we will do so; where not, we have to understand that we can open doors to dialogue through those trade deals. Indeed, we can then create flows of exports on untariffed sales at more favourable rates into those economies and help the transition, even in more developed countries where it is difficult to negotiate such chapters in our FTAs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I congratulate the Government on their policies and on what they are doing on the way forward? We should set an example to the rest of the world when it comes to global policies on how we trade. The recent election results have proven that there is a wish among all parties for that to happen, so we need to set an example. What has been done with the regional Administrations to ensure that Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England work together to set that example?

[George Hollingbery]

As the hon. Gentleman knows well, the UK has extensive funding for climate change mitigation and for sustainability. I would simply say to him that, as and when we manage to reinstitute the Stormont Assembly in Northern Ireland, we can have discussions between the DIT and other parts of the UK Government to ensure that those issues are taken forward.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s damascene conversion to addressing the climate emergency is welcome, but, as we have heard, some of those with whom he wishes to conclude trade agreements are less enlightened. Given what he has just said, will the Minister commit to introducing climate clauses to all future trade agreements? Will he publish specific details of the support his Department offers the fossil fuel sector through export finance, and say how that support conforms with the Equator Principles?

[George Hollingbery]

As I have said, we will consider each and every FTA on its own merits, and in certain circumstances we may find partners who are not prepared to put those sorts of clauses in an FTA. On balance, however, we will look at the advantage to exporters of low-carbon products, and ensure that as and when we proceed with those agreements—if we decide to do so—we facilitate the export of low-carbon products so that economies represented by Governments who do not wish to include an FTA clause on the environment can benefit from the transition that lower input costs produce. I have already made clear the Government’s position on publishing the output of UKEF. There will be an element of carbon-based energy generation in UKEF’s mix in the short term. The UK has huge and growing expertise that will no doubt come to the forefront of UKEF financing in due course, as that transition happens.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to strengthen UK trading relations with Israel in medical research and development; and if he will make a statement.

EU Foreign Affairs Council (Trade) 27 May 2019

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

The EU Foreign Affairs Council (Trade) took place in Brussels on 27 May 2019. Sir Tim Barrow, UK Permanent Representative to the European Union, represented the UK at the meeting. A summary of the discussions follows.

WTO reform

Commissioner Malmström provided an update on WTO reform, focusing particularly on the appellate body. Following her meetings last week in the margins of the OECD Ministerial Council meeting in Paris, she reported positive progress in the EU-US-Japan trilateral process on industrial subsidies, and also in building support for proposals to enhance transparency and notifications. Nearly 60 countries had agreed to launch negotiations on domestic regulation in services. However, negotiations on fisheries subsides were not on track for conclusion by the agreed end-year deadline.

Member states, (including the UK), endorsed the Commission’s approach to the appellate body and other WTO reform issues. Ministers formally adopted the negotiating mandate for the E-Commerce joint statement initiative.

EU-US

Commissioner Malmström updated Ministers on EU-US trade relations following her recent meeting with US Trade Representative (USTR) Lighthizer, and in the light of President Trump’s recent announcement, which delayed a final decision on auto tariffs by 180 days while instructing USTR to adjust the level of auto imports into the US. The Commissioner reiterated the EU’s position that any solution must be WTO-compatible. Talks between the two sides continue, including on potential agreements to reduce industrial tariffs and enhance regulatory co-operation.

Member states provided strong support for the Commission’s approach and for continued negotiations with the US on industrial tariffs and regulatory co-operation. Member states also expressed views on a range of other EU-US trade issues, including the Airbus/Boeing dispute and the US enactment of the Helms-Burton Act.

EU-Vietnam

The presidency set out their ambition for the EU-Vietnam free trade agreement and investment protection agreement to be signed during the G20 summit on 28-29 June, with Council adoption on 25 June. Labour and human rights were discussed. Most member states indicated readiness to meet the timeline for signature of the FTA. Progress of member states’ internal procedures over the investment protection agreement was likely to be slower.

[HCWS1602]

Foreign Affairs Council (Trade)

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

The EU Trade Foreign Affairs Council will take place in Brussels on 27 May 2019.

The substantive items on 27 May will be: non-legislative items: the state of play of World Trade Organisation modernisation and negotiations, the state of play of EU-US trade relations, and an exchange of views on preparation for signature of the EU-Vietnam free trade agreement and investment protection agreement.

[HCWS1577]

Future International Trade Opportunities

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) for introducing this important debate, and thank hon. Members from across the House for the many informed contributions, which I will return to before I have finished.

This debate is important because trade really matters to the UK. At £634 billion last year—equivalent to 30% of GDP—exports are not some separate add-on to our economy; they are integral to it. That is before we even get to our record £1.3 trillion of foreign direct investment, which last year alone created 76,000 new jobs, or the benefit of imports in giving us a wider choice of more affordable goods.

That is not the high-water mark, however: there are more opportunities to come. The patterns of world trade are shifting. We are entering a Pacific century after four Atlantic ones. The latest World Bank figures show China adding an economy the size of Portugal’s to its GDP ever four months—a pretty astonishing statistic. The UK will be one of the few developed countries to stay in the top 10. We can take advantage of that shift if we act now. That is why the Government have consulted on new trade agreements with the USA, Australia and New Zealand, and on potential accession to the catchily named Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a cross-Pacific agreement that covers 11 nations and already 13% of the world’s GDP, including many of the growing markets to which my hon. Friend referred in his speech.

The nature of trade is also shifting. McKinsey estimates that digital trade flows contribute more to the world economy than the entire trade in goods. Services are becoming ever more international. The UK is well placed to take advantage of those trends, too. We have a flourishing digital sector, with Europe’s largest e-commerce market. We are the second largest service exporter and, as my hon. Friend mentioned, we have particular strengths in areas such as insurance, where Lloyd’s is the world leader in maritime risk and specialist insurance and reinsurance.

That is why, in December, we submitted our WTO service schedules, to give continuity for our service exporters, and why, once we represent ourselves at the World Trade Organisation, we will be pushing for further liberalisation and further reform within the rules-based, consent-based, multilateral framework it provides. That also means looking beyond traditional trade agreements, which is why my Department has secured market access for everything from energy trading in China, to beef and lamb in Japan.

My hon. Friend mentioned a report by the London Market Group. As a specific response to that report, we have set up a new workstream with LMG to promote insurers in Association of Southeast Asian Nations countries. I saw that at first hand when I visited Singapore not long ago and met Prudential, which is working with Babylon. Amazingly, Prudential has a subsidiary in Malaysia that is nearly 100 years old and another in Singapore that is 85 years old. It has subsidiaries in Vietnam and in Indonesia and business throughout the ASEAN region, and I was very impressed by its attitude. It understood the power of data and of digital to allow it to insure more properly.

Colleagues have raised a number of issues, and I would like to deal with one or two of those. We have published a Command Paper on scrutiny and have made it absolutely clear that we wish to be transparent in how trade deals are dealt with in the House of Commons. The House of Commons, and indeed the House of Lords, should have full and proper scrutiny and we are pursuing those models. We are coming to a conclusion about the way in which we wish to do that and no doubt we will in due course negotiate with various parties in the House.

The hon. Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) both noted that services are at the centre of the UK’s agenda. Barriers to trade in services are generally behind the border, and with free trade agreements we deal with those issues through joint economic forums and multilateral interactions.

An independent trade policy is an opportunity for the UK. I understand the issue of the weight of 600 million people, but that also means that our trade policy is compromised. It is compromised in a good way—do not get me wrong—but it is designed to fit 28 nations. With a UK-based trade policy, we, with the sixth largest economy—or the fifth largest, depending on how it is measured—will have a tailored free-trade policy, which will be for the UK alone, and there will plainly be advantages in that.

The hon. Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Harrow West and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) made plain that what they want is no Brexit at all. We all have starting points on that question. I would describe myself as a democrat first and a remainer second, and the British people, while they did not speak with an absolutely unified voice on this issue, have told us that we should leave the EU. The hon. Members’ proposition simply does not deliver Brexit.

On continuity agreements, most Members will agree that there are all sorts of different motivations among our partners.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Hollingbery]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the clock, he will see that I cannot give way. Actually, rather than finishing my speech, I ought to give my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire space to sum up. I thank all hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

The Government support UK services businesses to access foreign markets in a number of ways, including through trade promotion and facilitation. For example, in March 2019, the DIT took a delegation of eight leading UK FinTech companies to exhibit at Money 20/20 in Singapore. The DIT also works with partners overseas to remove access barriers, opening up new opportunities for UK businesses.

[Michael Fabricant]

My hon. Friend will know that in this rather complex world environment, there is a confusion at times under WTO rules between goods and services. Once we leave the EU, get a clean break and regain our place at the WTO table, will he make it a priority to make clearer definitions of what are goods and what are services?

[George Hollingbery]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right; there are a great many complexities at the WTO. In fact, the world is sliding inexorably towards a future of increased protectionism without changes being agreed at the WTO to address all problems and to cope with new forms of trade that simply did not exist even 10 years ago and that create the confusion he identifies. As a newly independent voice, the UK will be a champion for change, openness and co-operation, because believe me, Mr Speaker, a failure to deal with the problems the WTO faces is not an outcome that anybody should want to contemplate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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

Can all those on the Government Front Bench tell me what I should say to my service and manufacturing industries that export overseas? For years, they have been frustrated that the Chinese are stealing their patents and intellectual property, but now this Government are going to open not only the back door but the front door to the Chinese to take their secrets and undercut them.

[George Hollingbery]

In the past week, the Chinese have agreed a joint communiqué with the EU about the forced transfer of intellectual property, which gives us some comfort. We work extensively with the Chinese Government through joint trade reviews to examine various areas of the economy, particularly in services, where we can address this. I believe that progress is being made on this front, but I go back to the point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant): this is a complex area. WTO rules make this very difficult to address, and we need to change it.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

Three quarters of our economy is in services, yet over 90% of service firms export nothing. What more can be done to change this underlying culture and systemic issue, so that the majority of service firms export?

[George Hollingbery]

As I mentioned in answer to the previous question, we are conducting a number of joint trade reviews with India, China and Brazil—some of the largest economies in the world—to ensure that we address some of these access barriers; to ensure that, for example, Chinese-language contracts are translated into an official English version; to ensure that service providers understand what the rules and regulations are; and to ensure that qualifications are matched across the piece. There is a great deal we can do and more that we will do.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I welcome what the Minister said about trying to open up overseas access to UK service companies. However, is it not hugely disappointing that the continuity agreements with Norway and Switzerland exclude trade in services? Is it not the case that if, post Brexit, we revert to WTO rules trade with the EU, we would see a massive 26% fall in global service trade, with just as bad a fall in the UK’s service trade even if we get that free trade agreement?

[George Hollingbery]

As we approach the negotiations with the EU on the future economic partnership, services will play a large part in that. We have signed mutual recognition agreements with Australia and New Zealand, and as for the Norway and Switzerland deals, we should never forget that 35% of pretty much all the goods contracts entered into by the UK is contained within services value. This is not just a matter of pure services, but of goods as well.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Service exporters depend on an international workforce, but arbitrary immigration targets limit their ability to recruit the staff they need. Growing our market share in services is essential to the future success of our economy, so if this Government truly have a global strategy, why are businesses that want to export being denied access to a global pool of talent?

[George Hollingbery]

On the whole, the services businesses that are exporting are doing so by establishing overseas, and therefore recruitment in the UK does not particularly concern them, as they are employing people in foreign countries. That said, we know there is an issue with provision of skilled labour in the UK. The immigration Bill, when it comes forward, will provide reassurance on the ability to recruit people with certain skill levels, and I look forward to seeing that.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to ensure that the (a) regions and (b) devolved Administrations of the UK contribute to the formulation of new free trade agreements.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

We are committed to ensuring a meaningful role for the regions and devolved Administrations in the development of our trade policy. The DIT has been consulting widely on its approach to potential FTAs with regional representatives from local government and local enterprise partnerships. I can further confirm that we are putting in place a new ministerial forum with the devolved Administrations to cover international trade, as well as continuing to discuss wider future working arrangements on trade policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Indeed.

[George Hollingbery]

As my hon. Friend will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is very keen on our keeping up contact with the Mayor of the West Midlands combined authority. We of course do so, and create contacts with businesses that way. The strategic trade advisory group, which will be helping us with FTAs, includes representation from regional business. We will always be there to consult with local business, and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) to contact the local DIT business office in Birmingham in relation to any businesses in Redditch that need its help.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that the devolved Administrations must be fully involved in developing both the negotiation mandate and the negotiations themselves when the international trade negotiations have an impact on devolved competencies?

[George Hollingbery]

I have visited the devolved Administrations several times and I talk with the Ministers on a regular basis. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that the devolved Administrations have a key part to play as we go forward and negotiate our free trade agreements. We are currently in negotiation with the DAs on putting together what is known as a concordat on how they will be implemented. The progress on that, to be quite frank with the House, has been disappointingly slow. From our end, we have not reached an agreed policy position, but we will do so shortly, and I am keen that the devolved Administrations are properly involved.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

If all these trade agreements are going to be so glorious, irresistible and beneficial to the economy, why not simply give the devolved Administrations the power to express their consent through legislation for each of them?

[George Hollingbery]

The matter of trade policy is a reserved power.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of the implications for the responsibilities of his Department of including UK membership of the EU customs union in the EU-UK political declaration.

--- Later in debate ---

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

5. What steps the Government are taking to protect intellectual property rights in international trade agreements.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

The UK’s intellectual property regime is consistently rated as one of the best in the world. The Government are reviewing their future trade policy as we leave the EU and ensuring that existing trade arrangements with global partners—including provisions on intellectual property—continue uninterrupted on the day the UK leaves the EU.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister will no doubt be aware that tomorrow is World Intellectual Property Day, and this year the theme is sport and intellectual property. A number of United Kingdom-based companies have had their intellectual property stolen by beoutQ, a Saudi Arabian-based pirate broadcaster, including—I know this will interest you, Mr Speaker—last Monday’s Watford against Arsenal match. What steps are we taking to protect the intellectual property rights of UK businesses and sports interests, and will we use our trade policy to hold to account countries such as Saudi Arabia that are allowing the theft of our country’s intellectual property in that way?

[George Hollingbery]

I am not familiar with the case raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but if would like to drop me a line, I would be happy to look into it more carefully. We will continue to make representations to Saudi Arabia on that point. The UK intellectual property regime is respected around the world, and our local, European and international commitments produce one of the tightest and most respected regulatory regimes for IP worldwide. We believe that is the right system, and we will insist that it is honoured by others, particularly if we are to do trade deals with them.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The Minister is right to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to do more trade internationally, but those businesses are the most vulnerable to the risk of intellectual property theft. What assurances and support can the Minister give companies such as those in the digital games sector in my constituency, to encourage them to do more abroad?

[George Hollingbery]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago. We have one of the most robust and respected regimes for IP protection internationally. A specialist group sits in the Department for International Trade and advises on IP matters, and that is very important to this country. We recognise the extent of exports that are driven by games, TV, sports and so on, and that is hugely important to us. SMEs should get in contact with local DIT offices. We can always help and would be delighted to do so.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

6. What his priorities are for the GREAT campaign in 2019-20.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

The Canadian model offers a useful example of how the devolved Administrations should be involved in trade policy formulation. Does the Secretary of State agree that a substantive role in the strategic trade advisory group is essential for the meaningful involvement of the Welsh Government in UK trade policy?

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

The strategic trade advisory group is there to provide a broad societal view of what should be achieved in free trade agreements. We are of course talking in depth with the Welsh Government about their views on what we ought and ought not to be doing on trade policy, the industries we should be championing and how. I do not think that the strategic trade advisory group is the right place for that engagement, but there is of course a Welsh business represented on the group.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is vital for us to encourage low-income countries to participate fairly in world trade, and for that they need inward investment. Will the Minister kindly advise us on what the UK is doing to promote investment into low-income countries so that they can participate fairly and reasonably in world trade, with world-class goods and services?

Draft Protecting Against the Effects of The Extraterritorial Application of Third Country Legislation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 General Committees

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Protecting against the Effects of the Extraterritorial Application of Third Country Legislation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

The existing EU regulation that we are seeking to transition, No. 2271/96, is commonly known as the EU blocking regulation. As its formal name suggests, it is designed to protect UK and EU businesses from the harmful effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by another country. That refers to a situation in which a country has enacted certain laws, regulations and other legislative instruments that purport to regulate activities of natural and legal persons outside its jurisdiction who are not its citizens and who are not legal persons incorporated in that jurisdiction. It could, for example, result in penalties against a UK citizen for carrying out activities in the UK that we consider to be fully legitimate under our law. The UK and EU have long opposed the extraterritorial effect of sanctions legislation on our businesses and the dissuasive impact that that can have on legitimate trade.

The blocking regulation is designed to protect UK businesses in two key ways. First, article 4 guarantees that courts in EU member states will not recognise or allow the enforcement of judgments against EU businesses for fines that they incur in a third country for breaching sanctions with extraterritorial effect. Secondly, article 6 enables businesses to seek damages through the courts in any member state should they be negatively impacted by the application of extraterritorial legislation within the scope of the blocking regulation.

There may be occasions on which compliance with third-country sanctions regimes is necessary—in the interests of businesses and our wider Government policy to continue to trade with Iran, Cuba and Libya. Where those instances occur, the EU has the power to issue authorisations for businesses to comply with third-party sanctions regimes. How is that done? The EU considers requests for compliance authorisations in accordance with the process and criteria set out in Commission implementing regulation 2018/1101 of 3 August 2018, referred to as the implementing regulation.

Using powers under section 8 of, and paragraph 21(b) of schedule 7 to, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this draft SI amends the blocking regulation and the implementing regulation as retained in UK law and fixes them for the UK-only context. Generally speaking, the draft SI transfers the functions of the European Commission to the Secretary of State, as would be expected of all SIs made under the EU withdrawal Act. For instance, once this draft SI enters into force, UK businesses will be able to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to comply with US extraterritorial sanctions and the Secretary of State will be able to grant that permission, according to whether they judge the applications to be consistent with criteria set out in legislation. Such criteria include considering whether, if an authorisation were denied, a company would face significant economic losses that might threaten its viability or pose a serious risk of bankruptcy, or whether it would lose access to essential inputs or resources.

Currently, the Commission defines the scope of the blocking regulation—that is, which specific pieces of legislation it applies to—through tertiary legislation amending and updating the annex to the blocking regulation. The draft SI transfers that power to the Secretary of State through the mechanism of the laying of an SI under the negative procedure.

As we leave the EU, we must ensure that we continue to protect UK businesses from the effect of extraterritorial legislation. Our opposition to extraterritorial legislation is of long standing and predates the blocking regulation. The UK has had legislation making that evident on the statute book since 1980; I am referring to the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980. We firmly believe that our operators should be able to continue legitimate trade free from the harmful effects of the extraterritoriality that we consider to be illegal under international law. These draft regulations are a key part of that policy stance and are particularly relevant given our foreign and trade policy stances on Cuba and Iran.

I welcome the opportunity for full scrutiny of this draft statutory instrument and look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I do not think the Minister minds.

[George Hollingbery]

Oh, I do.

[Bill Esterson]

As the Secretary of State is not here, we will settle for the Minister. Can he clarify whether it is the Department’s intention that persons must have been resident for a continuous six-month period or is the 183-day test to be applied?

These are serious and complex matters and I welcome the opportunity to debate them today. As the United Kingdom seeks to be a stronger voice in defence of the rules-based system that underpins global trade and international relations, it is important not only that such legislation is in place, but that the Government address the matters raised in this debate and put their policy intention on the record.

[George Hollingbery]

As a small matter of fact, the Burton-Helms Act is not back on the register, but 17 April is just around the corner, so I absolutely take the point made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central. That is why Cuba is included on the list.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. I was asked to confirm whether the Government have any intention of deleting from or adding to the list, and the answer is no. I have had no conversations to that effect that I am aware of, and my officials advise that that is the case as far as they, too, are aware. He asked whether there was any Government assessment of the potential effect on UK companies of any such claims coming forward. The answer is that it is impossible to know without knowing how many claims would come forward, when they would come forward, to whom and on what issues. Therefore, it is impossible to make that sort of estimate.

However, I cannot think it would necessarily change any policy decisions, certainly in this regard. This draft instrument is designed to demonstrate to the United States that we do not respect the extraterritoriality of its legislation. That is the principal issue we face; I do not think that doing that assessment would have changed our mind about that, and in any event I cannot see how we would calculate it.

[Bill Esterson]

I am sure it is not an easy thing to do, but presumably some assessment must have been carried out when the EU originally brought in the blocking regulations. Of course, we are staying consistent with that approach, but presumably there is some sense of intent on the part of the United States Government, or of companies in the United States, that would inform the decision and why it is so important that these regulations are transferred.

[George Hollingbery]

One could argue about this for hours. Quite straightforwardly, we have not done such an assessment. The regulations are there, for example, in addition to the penalties and fines that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, to ensure that the United States or United States-based companies cannot sue UK companies in UK courts. I do not know how one would assess the level of return and/or cost that that might represent.

To my mind, this is about a base principle: we do not recognise the extraterritorial power of the US regulations, and we are therefore legislating to ensure that British companies do not have to comply with them in our courts or indeed elsewhere. I am not at all aware that any cost analysis was done when the measure was previously put in place, but I do not believe we would add much to the mix by doing another one for a UK context, particularly given that it has been in place for the best part of 20 years. It is what it is; it has been in place for 20 years, and we are seeking today to transfer it into a UK context.

The hon. Gentleman asked about notification and the amount of time within which it is expected that people will tell the Government. The answer is 30 days. He also asked whether I have had any conversations with the United States trade representative, Bob Lighthizer, and others. In a personal context, I can answer that I have never had such conversations, nor am I aware of any other such conversations having taken place with others.

We will publish a list of those who have been authorised and what they have been authorised for. The EU does not currently publish such a list, so we believe that will be a useful piece of information and that it will apply transparency to our suggested arrangements. We went over the issue of legal cost to jurisdictions and other member states. Plainly, there is no equivalent item for ensuring that the member state in which that person lives is notified to the Commission, because that person is living in the United Kingdom as a citizen, so I cannot see why that section is required.

I will speak quickly about enforcement. The Department for International Trade does not carry an investigation directorate. If we found that a complaint merited further investigation, we would pass the details on to the police and they are entirely entitled to investigate it. If companies feel that they have been disadvantaged by other people complying with the extraterritorial legislation of the United States, they are entitled, if they wish, to bring an action against that company in civil courts. That is provided for.

Finally, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his pointer towards the drafting errors in draft regulations 3(8)(c) and 3(8)(d). I have no particular knowledge of that, but I have no doubt that the lawyers will look at it carefully.

[Bill Esterson]

I asked the Minister about the transfer of the current scrutiny arrangements. The specific institutions of the EU that scrutinise the operation of the regulations in the EU have not been replicated in the UK; they have just been taken on by the Secretary of State. On the issue of the immediacy of reporting to Parliament, the requirement for the EU to report immediately is not replicated in the proposed regulations.

[George Hollingbery]

It is the UK Government’s intention to publish, as I have described, in every instance. We have not yet determined the exact method for that, or the period in which it will be done, but I can say that the Opposition and others have my absolute commitment that those names will be published along with what those names or companies are allowed to do.

Question put and agreed to.

EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement

George Hollingbery Excerpts

Friday 29th March 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

I am pleased to announce that my Department will today publish an impact assessment for the EU-Vietnam free trade agreement (FTA). I have separately written to the EU Scrutiny Committees in both Houses of Parliament such that they can consider this evidence as part of their important scrutiny of this agreement.

A copy of this impact assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The European Union and Vietnam agreed on final texts for an EU-Vietnam free trade agreement and an EU-Vietnam investment protection agreement in July 2018. Proposals for council decisions on signature and conclusion of the agreements were published on 19 October 2018, therefore kick starting the process of parliamentary scrutiny.

The Government remain committed to transparency in trade matters both under current EU parliamentary scrutiny processes and under future UK bilaterally negotiated agreements.

[HCWS1468]