Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Hollingbery and Bill Esterson

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Hollingbery and Bill Esterson

Thursday 25th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[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.

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

Debate between George Hollingbery and Bill Esterson

Monday 1st April 2019 General Committees

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Hollingbery and Bill Esterson

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[George Hollingbery]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman has a real constituency concern and interest in this. The simple fact is that the UK intends to operate within the World Trade Organisation and subscribe to the world’s rules-based order on trade, and that gives us a great deal of protection. We are always able to bring disputes if we feel that WTO rules are being flouted inappropriately.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

In the United States, pork is produced using ractopamine, which causes heart disease, and it is not treated for trichinosis, which can lead to stomach upset. The US National Pork Producers Council wants its standards included in the US-UK trade deal, and it has the support of its Government in that demand. This threat to food safety is completely unacceptable, so will the Minister rule out any reduction in food standards in international trade agreements?

[George Hollingbery]

I repeat what we have said from this Dispatch Box and this Department many, many times: we absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that our food standards should be maintained. As for the requirements the US has laid out in its provisional negotiating strategy for its agreement with the UK, if he looks carefully at previous such agreements and previous such outline mandates from the US, he will find that they are almost exactly the same in every respect. That does not mean to say that they are delivered in that form.

EU Free Trade Agreements

Debate between George Hollingbery and Bill Esterson

Thursday 24th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The tiger that was previously in the library has now been removed, and the immediate danger has been averted. I think the Minister will be familiar with the Merchant Ivory film in which that exchange occurs. [Interruption.] It is fairly obvious, if one applies one’s mind to it.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) asked a very simple and sensible question. The Minister’s long and rambling answer had a simple summary—clearly, it was no. The Secretary of State repeatedly told us that it was a simple matter to roll over deals on trade with approximately 70 countries, which constitutes 13% of our exports and 12% of our imports—it would be a cut-and-paste job. The Government would be ready on day one after Brexit, he told us. That was never true, was it? Those deals are entirely separate and independent from any deal that we may have with the EU.

If we leave with no deal, can the Minister confirm that these arrangements with third-party countries will fall away, as we have consistently warned? Will he confirm that, without new agreements in place, we could, in the absence of a deal with the EU, have no basis of trade with these countries after 29 March, and would fall back on World Trade Organisation rules? That is an argument for taking no deal off the table if ever there was one.

Will the Minister confirm that many of the terms of those agreements will need to be amended, and could be changed substantively as countries seek to improve on the terms that they have with the EU? Will he also confirm that agreements with countries that have economic partnership agreements are often regarded as being not fit for purpose and are alleged to have been signed under economic duress? The Minister will do well to listen to some of this, as this is the reality of what is going on in his Department. For example, North African countries want to sell their oranges and olive oil to us in far greater quantities than is allowed by the EPAs with the EU, which protect southern European producers.

In the Trade Bill debate in the Lords yesterday, the Minister conceded that the Department had no idea how many countries were ready to roll over their free trade agreements, how many would not, how many would have to adjust their constitutional arrangements, and how long that might take. Will the Minister for Trade Policy confirm that his colleague was right to say so?

The Secretary of State is busy socialising in Davos. Is that not a reminder of the incompetence and overconfidence that he has shown over the past two and a half years?

[George Hollingbery]

The hon. Gentleman opened his question by expressing his view that I had given a long and rambling answer. I am pretty confident that the question was longer and more rambling than my previous answer.

Will there be no basis of trade if we fall out without an agreement? No. There will continue to be the basis of trade that exists for everybody, which is the World Trade Organisation. [Interruption.] Indeed, I do confirm that. That is why we are putting such an enormous amount of effort into transitioning these agreements. Will the terms be amended? Yes; plainly, the bilateral partners with whom we are negotiating have different motivations. That is something that I have made very clear to members of the International Trade Committee when I have talked to them. That has led to some extension of the discussions that we are having, but many of those discussions are going extremely well. I reiterate to the House that I am confident that the majority of these trade arrangements will be put in place by the time we leave the European Union.

The hon. Gentleman also treated us to his analysis of EPAs, saying that they were not fit for purpose. He gave us the example of oranges. The last time I stood opposite him in a debate, he gave us the example of the difficulty that EPAs cause Ghana and its chicken, and indeed Tanzania and its fish. On the Ghana agreement, the fact is—I remember this—that chicken had been completely excluded from the EPA. The point about Tanzania and fish is not entirely relevant to EPAs, as there is no EPA with Tanzania.

My confidence is strong on this issue. I believe that we will have the majority of these arrangements in place. Yes, some of them are challenging. One or two of them are even more than challenging; they are close to impossible. Turkey has clearly been identified as an area where the issue of a customs union makes a deal with it very difficult indeed. I have made these things absolutely plain to the House before. However, I believe that we will have the vast majority of these other arrangements in place. We will protect our consumers and our businesses, which will be able to carry on using preferences.

Draft Trade Barriers (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between George Hollingbery and Bill Esterson

Tuesday 27th November 2018 General Committees

[George Hollingbery]

I will start by addressing the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and by the shadow Minister. Given the rather complex circumstances, and to ensure that I get this right, I think it only wise for the Department to back up what I say by writing to the Committee. However, my understanding is that we need to pick between trade remedies and trade barriers. As far as trade remedies are concerned, we will be named as a co-sponsor or co-worker—whatever we call it—when any complaint is brought by the European Union during the implementation period. I will need my officials to write to the Committee to confirm that point absolutely, because I do not wish to mislead the Committee.

As far as trade barriers are concerned, I see no reason why we would need to work particularly with the EU on that front. We will have our own independent trade policy and we will be able to move forward and make the sorts of approaches that we need to make. We will have established our WTO schedules, both for goods and for services, and should therefore be in a position to make our own complaints on that basis. Indeed, we will absolutely be able to make our own representations to individual Governments and bilateral partners, as we do already.

I am not sufficiently confident in my answer about the trade remedies side to assert my righteousness today, but I will clear that up. On trade barriers, I believe that we will be able to carry on with our new regulations, or rather lack of regulation, under our non-statutory system. If I am incorrect about that point, I will make it clear in my note to the Committee.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on both trade remedies and trade barriers. He spoke about the confidence he has in our ability to lay our own schedules at the WTO. He will know, as will other Members, that there are countries that are suggesting that they may object. It only takes one country to do so. What sort of indications and discussions have been had in very recent times—in the last few days—that suggest that those objections have been removed? Without that, this would be very difficult to achieve.

[George Hollingbery]

I absolutely would not agree. We have laid our schedules at the WTO. The EU has been operating on uncertified schedules since 1995. It is in the midst of dealing with that non-certification, with up to 25 members, not 28. It is absolutely the case that, at the moment, the EU is operating on uncertified schedules.

We are quite clear that, from a WTO point of view, it is entirely proper for a nation to lay its schedules and then operate on them, and in the meantime negotiate with anybody who may have problems with those schedules. That is exactly what we are engaged in doing. The Secretary of State has talked about operating an article 28 procedure, in which the statutory route in WTO law is dealt with, and there is a very well understood path through which one then negotiates with bilateral partners on the objections they have to the schedules. That does not mean that a country cannot work at the WTO or have representation at the WTO on those schedules. They are there and they are laid.

I will answer one or two of the other questions asked by the hon. Member for Sefton Central. As I hope I have reasonably demonstrated in the debate, the current regulation is complex, inaccessible and, in particular, locks out small business. Is it a success? No, we can say absolutely without any question that it is not a success. There have been 70 complaints this year, despite the fact that there is a trade barrier regulation within the European Union. That demonstrates to me that there are still issues and barriers.

There is not this magical soft power idea that the hon. Gentleman suggests—that somehow because the trade barrier regulation exists, people are not contravening trade barriers. They plainly are: 70 complaints have had to be dealt with. We see plenty in the Department for International Trade from the UK point of view; I have been involved in several. I absolutely do not take his point that this is somehow a piece of soft power that prevents trade barriers arising.

[Bill Esterson]

It is important to clarify exactly what I said. I did not say that they were not arising; I said that they were resolved, without the need for recourse to the statutory part of the procedure. That is a very different point to the one the Minister appears to have answered. I accept that he may have misinterpreted my words, but that is not what I was saying.

[George Hollingbery]

Quite plainly, all I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that we deal with a great many of these issues outwith the UK and outwith the EU; we have issues with trade barriers with third-party countries that are nothing to do with the EU. They arise; we solve them. That says to me that the regulation is not required and, in fact, what exists at the moment is pretty much what we intend to do in the future. We intend to improve upon it, systematise it and make sure that there is an easily accessible route into it, and an easily accessible stream of information coming out of it to both small and large businesses, so that their business decisions can be informed by the information we have received and/or the information about what has been achieved in terms of getting rid of the trade barrier. I do not accept his contention at all. Dealing with such issues informally seems to work perfectly well for us already. I think it can work better, the Department thinks it can work better and we are progressing to make it work better.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the financial impact on UK businesses. To be absolutely clear, the explanatory memorandum attempts to estimate what the regulation would cost UK business, not what non-compliance is and how it operates and whether somebody is already complaining through it. In essence, if one is repealing a regulation, it is unlikely to put any particular cost directly on business because of the legislation.

We consulted widely with stakeholders who have engaged with us on trade barrier issues. There was no great enthusiasm among them for retaining the regulation. One of our correspondents said that they had used it in the past and it had worked for them, but my experience of this user is that they use the non-statutory route far, far more often and had not used this route in a long time. They seem to us to be sanguine about the fact that we chose to do this through a non-statutory route and improved the way that we were doing it.

The hon. Gentleman asked what the TRA might do in this regard, to take over the TBR regulatory powers. The answer is that the Trade Remedies Authority is there to deal with trade remedies and not trade barriers. It is there to deal with subsidies, dumping and safeguarding. Likewise, he asked about the progress of statutory instruments that are required on subsidies, dumping and safeguarding, which are clearly to do with the Trade Remedies Authority, rather than trade barriers. They will come to the House in due course.

Regarding the non-statutory route that we currently operate, we have extremely good relationships with business about the way we represent them overseas, in all theatres and on all issues. In the admittedly short time that I have been in post, I have found nothing but praise for our network overseas and how it represents businesses. Every time I meet with businesses out in the field, they say to me that they have excellent relationships with the staff on the ground in different countries and that if they raise an issue about trade barriers, it is dealt with. Of course, it is not always solved, but out in post and indeed here in London, in DIT, we follow up every one of those issues. We address the third-party country, we attempt to resolve the issues, and in rare cases where we do not manage to solve the issue, we take further action. Currently, that is done through the Commission, but later it will be through our own seat at the WTO.

The hon. Gentleman asked about industry associations and an appetite for feeding into Government on this issue. We believe there is a case for consulting with industry. Clearly, it would be strange if we did not, particularly in steel and ceramics where there are lots of issues to be dealt with. There are a lot of resources across Government, where forums already exist, and we are looking at using those more as a Department. As yet, how we will do that is undefined and not scoped, but we recognise that there is a resource there and the appetite of industry to contribute.

There is a narrow point to make on the devolved authorities, which will have access to the Department for International Trade’s database on all of these ongoing issues and all the actions that are being taken to try to resolve all the potential barriers.

I promise to write to the Committee to clarify the position on what we will do with trade remedies and trade barriers post-exit, but before the end of the implementation period.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Barriers (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between George Hollingbery and Bill Esterson

Thursday 15th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Hollingbery]

The Government have only just published the withdrawal agreement, which will be before the House shortly, and the Department will assess all issues of that sort in the context of the proposed agreement.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State spoke earlier of how highly regarded UK goods are. That is true of successful exports such as dairy, smoked salmon and vegetables. I noticed that the Minister made a commitment in his initial answer to not dropping our food standards. Given that the United States has made it clear that that is exactly what has to happen to agree any future trade deals, will he now rule out any trade deals, including with the United States, that see any drop in our very high and successful food standards?

[George Hollingbery]

I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave moments ago. We are scoping potential trade deals with all the partners with whom we have announced that we are seeking to do free trade deals, and our position on these standards remains exactly the same: we will not be changing UK law in this regard.

Draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Economic Partnership Agreements and Trade Agreement) (Eastern and Southern Africa States, Southern African Development Community States, Ghana and Ecuador) Order 2018

Debate between George Hollingbery and Bill Esterson

Wednesday 31st October 2018 General Committees

[George Hollingbery]

I will try to take the points made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central in order; I will be brief on some and perhaps develop a couple a little further, but hon. Members present should be confident that I will not take forever.

First, the hon. Gentleman stated that he felt the Trade Bill prevents us from discussing these issues any further, but that is absolutely not the case. Clause 2 of the Trade Bill was considerably amended on Report in the Commons, which means there is now very full discussion of any changes that are to be enacted by statutory instrument. Indeed, a report will be produced on the effects and changes in any free trade deal that is transitioned.

During the debate on the affirmative instruments, there will be a supporting explanatory memorandum, which will point to exactly the changes identified in the report that have been made by that statutory instrument. Therefore, the House has every right, every ability and every chance to debate those changes, and no doubt will do so.

The hon. Gentleman said that it was entirely for the Secretary of State to decide whether something is ratified. For the same reasons, that is absolutely not true. The House will have any number of opportunities to debate all the small changes, or even larger changes—we hope very much there will be no larger changes—in these transitioned agreements. He asserted that EPAs have been agreed under pressure.

[Bill Esterson]

The process that the House will be able to use is to delay, using the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The House cannot amend the agreements, can it—unless the Minister is telling me that the Government will table further amendments to the Trade Bill in the Lords?

[George Hollingbery]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the House can actually delay indefinitely through the CRAGA process, but if it decides not to pass essential modifications that enact the practical legislative effects of any agreement, it will make that agreement difficult to operate. The House will have full opportunity to discuss those SIs in Committee. It is certainly not the case that the Secretary of State gets to decide; nothing could be further from the truth.

We were talking about the EPAs being agreed under pressure, but that is just not true. If it were true, I suspect there would be very little appetite among nations with whom we have these agreements to replicate them, but I can be clear with the hon. Gentleman that there is an appetite to replicate them. As for Rob Davies, the Trade Minister in South Africa, I met him in August and he was keen that we replicate the agreement. We agreed, around a table with officials, that we should instruct our officials to ensure that that was done in a timely fashion and as soon as possible; so either he has changed his mind, or he did not believe that in the first place.

I am not quite sure I understood the hon. Gentleman’s question about the technical barriers to trade, but I am very happy to provide him with some illumination about what they are. We can talk about customs and all sorts of different issues—those are the technical barriers to trade. Technical barriers to labour rights may, I suspect, be legislation within individual jurisdictions.

[Bill Esterson]

Paragraph 7.6 of the Minister’s explanatory memorandum refers to addressing

“broader trade issues such as technical barriers to trade and labour rights.”

I was asking him to explain what he meant by

“technical barriers to trade and labour rights.”

[George Hollingbery]

In that case, I meant exactly what I just said. It is not technical barriers to trade and technical barriers to labour rights, but technical barriers to trade, such as poor customs systems and so on and so forth, which the Department for International Development has very considerable programmes to address. The TradeMark East Africa programme has been enormously successful, for example in reducing the time taken for items to clear customs by 32% over the life of the programme. By “address…labour rights”, we mean that it is also our intention to tackle the issue of labour rights. I hope that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

On the reference to public services, EU publicly funded services are excluded from liberalisation in all free trade agreements. That is an absolutely standard clause in all EU free trade agreements, and we are clear that in the free trade agreements we sign, we will also be protecting our public services from private competition. The right to legislate in the public interest in public services will be enshrined in our FTAs.

The hon. Gentleman made the not unreasonable point that the EPAs are not of the same scale as China and so on. That is the whole point of the EPA programme. There is a 20-year period in which liberalisation happens. There are also all sorts of breaks and control mechanisms, and indeed mechanisms for discussing certain issues if they arise and are acute for any particular country at any particular time. I am convinced that the mechanisms that sit around these agreements allow for modification, for change and for emergency procedures to be brought in, to deal with real difficulties that individual countries might face.

Trade Bill

Debate between George Hollingbery and Bill Esterson

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Hollingbery]

I am delighted to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I can accord with your wishes and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).

The Government have been consistently clear that the priority for the UK’s existing trade relationships as we leave the EU is continuity. Our partner countries are clear on that, too, and this Bill is about continuity. Specifically, clause 2 creates a power to help with the implementation of obligations of the trade agreements that we are seeking to transition into UK-only agreements as we leave the EU. I recognise that Members are seeking reassurance that the Government will be transparent about the content of these transitioned agreements and about what might need to change to deliver this continuity, which we have championed for so long.

Indeed, I understand the purpose of the new clause 6 and the associated amendments, tabled in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), and I held constructive discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon to ascertain how best we could help that transparency. As a result, the Government have tabled new clauses 12 to 14 and amendments 4, 36 to 39, 42, 71 to 75 and 79. I will now explain them in a little detail.

New clause 12 and the associated Government amendments will place a duty on Ministers to lay a report in both Houses of Parliament. This report will explain any changes made to the continuity agreements when compared with the existing EU third country agreements. The report will be laid in Parliament before the continuity agreements are ratified or at least 10 Commons sitting days before any implementing regulations are laid under clause 2, whichever comes first. We want these reports to be as helpful as possible. That is why they will signpost any significant changes being made, to ensure that existing trade agreements can function effectively in the UK-only context. Implementing regulations made under clause 2 will also now be subject to the affirmative resolution process, which will further enhance parliamentary scrutiny. I have also committed that, for each statutory instrument made under the clause 2 power, the accompanying explanatory memorandum will be explicit in referencing which of the changes identified in the report it plays a part in implementing.

With amendments 44 to 47, we are reducing from five years to three years the length of the period for which the implementing power can be used. The period will be renewable by agreement in both Houses of Parliament.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon agrees that these amendments address the spirit of the issues he was seeking clarity on and provide enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

We raised concerns in Committee about the Government’s power grab in the Bill. For 40 years, we have subcontracted our responsibility for trade agreements to the EU, while scrutiny has been delivered through the European Parliament and by our own European Scrutiny Committee, yet the Government are not proposing any equivalent scrutiny processes for agreements that will replace those we currently have through our membership of the EU. This lack of scrutiny is a major issue, and we raised the concerns of business, trade unions, civil society, consumers and many more in Committee.

The Labour party submitted a series of amendments in Committee that embodied a full process of parliamentary scrutiny and extra-parliamentary consultation. The Government responded by saying that the new UK agreements would just roll over the terms of existing EU agreements and would thus need no process of scrutiny, having already been scrutinised.