Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

If the Minister is right that removing the disapplication would restrict the Government’s ability to collect the data they need, will he tell the Committee what data that is currently protected the Government wish to access or have a hold of that they would not otherwise be able to get?

[Greg Hands]

That is a very reasonable question, but I will stress what I said earlier: it is not possible at this stage to anticipate what specific restrictions may apply to the additional public bodies, otherwise we would have put on the face of the Bill which other public bodies could be added in due course. We have not put those on the face of the Bill, but we have said that it is perfectly possible that, during the conduct of these operations, it will become clear that there is other data out there that would assist the Government in ensuring that trade flows well at the border. We want to ensure that those other bodies could quickly come within scope, through the delegated procedures that we have laid out in legislation, and therefore it would not be appropriate to put a general restriction on those bodies. It is best to rely on the overall restrictions in the legislation to ensure that we have robust data protection.

Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s clarification. It certainly is not my job to outline whatever other legislation may be out there. That would be entirely a matter for the Leader of the House of Commons, who, as we know, made a statement on other legislation earlier this week.

The Member speaking for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, says that he supports the Bill, he supports the continuity agreements, he supports its procurement measures, he supports the trade defences, he supports the data sharing—but he has used every available opportunity to vote against the Bill. He voted against it on Second Reading, he voted against it on Third Reading and it has been voted against at every available opportunity by the official Opposition and by the Scottish National party as well. He says that the concern is that we might kick the Trade Bill into the long grass. No, we very much want the Trade Bill to get Royal Assent as soon as possible. It has very important provisions in it, such as allowing domestic law to remain amendable for continuity trade agreements and the Trade Remedies Authority. It is a very important piece of legislation.

But I did welcome the hon. Member’s commitment to conclude the Trade Bill by the end of January. I see the current Government Deputy Chief Whip here—the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). As a former Government Deputy Chief Whip, I and, as a former Chief Whip of the Opposition, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that that is not entirely in the hands of the Government and that, actually, it is very much as well in the hands of the whole of Parliament. But I will take that as a submission to the usual channels that the official Opposition want the Trade Bill to achieve Royal Assent by 31 January, which is what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said. I will take that as a submission of the Opposition’s intent—good intent—to get it through as quickly as possible.

The hon. Member says he was against CRaG, but I remind him that it was the last Labour Government who introduced CRaG. His boss, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), actually voted for CRaG. He also propagated this deliberate confusion about the oven-ready deal. It is quite clear that that referred to the withdrawal agreement that the House of Commons voted on a year ago. I would just ask him: is he going to support the further trade deal, if there is one, with the European Union? We have heard silence from the official Opposition on that.

To turn to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who also had a very constructive tone, in areas of devolved competence we have been clear. I am repeating the same commitments made at the Dispatch Box during the passage of the Trade Bill, including in the Committee stage of the Trade Bill, that he remarked on at the time and he will remember well. I am making those same commitments today. Overall, we wish to work with the devolved Administrations, particularly in areas of devolved competence, where they have a clear role, such as the management of highways, around ports and other things that relate to facilitating trade.

The hon. Member added, notwithstanding that, that he did not want me to think this was a sudden conversion, with him agreeing with the Government trade policy—definitely not. As I have pointed out from the Dispatch Box a few times, the Scottish National party has not supported a single trade agreement proposed either here or in Brussels.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) that these are not new measures in any sense. They are taken directly from the Trade Bill. The HMRC powers were published in 2017. The further powers were published in July on Report. We are introducing this legislation purely because the Trade Bill probably will not get Royal Assent before 31 December.

I reassure my hon. Friend that there are safeguards on the data. It is data that is already collected. There is no new disclosure of data. Specific named authorities are discretionary to support a Government Minister’s function in relation to trade. In terms of such things as anonymity, the existing restrictions around the General Data Protection Regulation and the UK Data Protection Act 1998 kick in. On taxation, there are already strong measures in place to protect the data of taxpayers. The Bill is clear that data can be shared only where disclosure would support functions related to trade. It could not be disclosed for any other purposes.

My hon. Friend also asked about a private company performing a function on behalf of a public authority. That is possible, but it would operate under the same restrictions and the discretionary powers would apply—GDPR and so on. He asked me for a Dispatch Box commitment on agriculture and food standards. Our commitment is absolute. The commitment that he and I made individually and collectively in our general election manifesto this time a year ago continues as well.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) called for an adjustment period, which I think is a new term for a transition period. She is calling for a transition period from the transition period, which would increase uncertainty. The UK is leaving the single market and the customs union on 1 January, and an indeterminate postponement of that would, by definition, only increase uncertainty.

[Stewart Hosie]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I am going to finish now. The purpose of the Bill is simple: it allows the Government to use data that they already hold, in order to ensure the smooth flow of traffic, goods and people across the UK’s borders at the end of the transition period. The Bill will support better services by permitting data on the flow of international trade to be shared and analysed. The Bill does not create any new powers, but brings forward critical powers that are needed from the end of the transition period to ensure that the Government and public bodies can use the information that they already collect.

We have had a good debate, carried out in an excellent spirit, and I thank all Members for their contributions. My thanks also go to the Government Opposition Whips, of course, who have ensured that the Second Reading has run effectively—particularly under your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I look forward to tasting some of this Meon Valley wine, although I have to say that 9.39 in the morning might feel a little early. Our commitment to promoting British wines is very strong. Among the potential 70 geographical indicators in the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement deal are: English wine, English regional wine, Welsh wine and Welsh regional wine. We are in regular contact with WineGB and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association to help to promote this vital industry.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

After listening to these Whips’ questions, I think I would like some English wine as well, Mr Speaker.

I had a long and detailed discussion with NFU Scotland on Monday. In its words, it is “really worried” about future trade deals. Fundamentally, the UK is a high cost, high food standard regime. It argues that it simply cannot compete with low-cost competition with lower food standards elsewhere. Is it not now time for the Government to change tack, and include chapters on food, animal welfare and standards in trade agreements?

[Greg Hands]

I studied very carefully the hon. Gentleman’s amendment during the passage of the Trade Bill. In many ways, he had an even more extreme amendment than the Labour party in terms of trying to dictate our trade partners’ domestic production standards. That would have killed off a huge amount of our trade with the developing world. He mentions NFU Scotland. I thought I would go directly to the source. I am reading here from The Scottish Farmer, which I recommend he reads. NFU Scotland president, Andrew McCornick, said in The Scottish Farmer only last week, on putting the TAC on a statutory footing:

“This is a huge step forward.”

[Stewart Hosie]

Putting an organisation on a statutory footing is one thing, but protecting food standards is something different. I think the Minister’s answer is what Americans call doubling down on a previous mistake. Let me give an example. UK egg producers simply cannot compete with imported eggs produced where the density of laying hens may be twice that permitted in the United Kingdom. The only way they could do that would be to massively lower food production and animal welfare standards, something we know from the recent Which? survey the public are implacably opposed to. Is it really the Government’s intention to be on the wrong side of food standards, the wrong side of animal welfare, the wrong side of the farming industry and the wrong side of public opinion?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He mentions the Which? survey. I was delighted to be the guest speaker at the launch of the Which? survey, “The National Trade Conversation”, where we discussed many of these aspects. To be absolutely clear to him again, our commitment that there will be no lowering of standards on animal welfare, food safety and the environment is absolute. I urge him again to get with the trade agenda and listen to NFU Scotland, which says it will

“strive to ensure that the best interests of farming, food and the drink and the public continue to be front and centre of any trade deals.”

That is exactly the right approach being taken by NFU Scotland. I urge him and the SNP to get on board with that positive approach for the first time, please.

Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent question. I am aware of his background—I think he worked for five years in Brazil and knows the market extremely well. Mercosur is, of course, a very important partner for the United Kingdom, and there are significant opportunities for British business to do more trade, including with Brazil. Just last week, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire, were pleased to host their first Joint Economic and Trade Committee with Minister Fendt from Brazil. They spoke about success to date in financial services and food and drink sectors. As there is not an EU-Mercosur deal in effect, any future UK-Mercosur deal is not within the scope of this programme.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The problem here is not simply the incomplete deals; it is the process we are following, which is not fit for purpose. MPs have no ability to vote to amend our negotiating mandate. As the Minister said, the Government report voluntarily, normally at the end of a negotiating stage to tell us that everything is great, but with no information about obstacles overcome or new obstacles emerging. Perhaps towards the end of a negotiation, the negotiators go into a tunnel from which no information emerges unless it is leaked to provide leverage, which is profoundly unhelpful. We are then offered a vote on a short take-it-or-leave-it debate—again, with no ability to amend or to reflect or represent constituents or sectoral interests. Finally, we find out, normally from the foreign press, as was the case with Switzerland and Norway, that the deal is not what the Government trumpeted it to be.

I ask the Minister, briefly, what action will he take to expedite the outstanding deals? What action will he take to mitigate the potential tariff and quota costs on some £80 billion of trade? More importantly, what action will the Government take because CRaG is not fit for purpose and we need a new system that allows MPs scrutiny and the ability to amend?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the rather more thoughtful questions than those of the official Opposition. Of course, to be fair to him, he voted against CRaG. In fact, he, I and the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) were all elected in the same year, 2005. He voted against CRaG, which is fair enough, and the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury and I voted for it. I can understand his consistency in being opposed to the process. However, we are confident that it represents a robust way of ratifying trade agreements and of Parliament having its say.

Not only that, but we have added to the CRaG process by publishing a scoping analysis and a likely economic impact assessment in advance of the deal, made written ministerial statements after each round, and then publishing an impact assessment when the deal is finally done which gets sent off to the International Trade Committee and the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee in the other place. We have gone far further than CRaG.

I will also say this about SNP Members. Once again, they are complaining about these deals not being rolled over, but they are all deals that they have either not supported or abstained on. They abstained on EU-Japan. They abstained on EU-Singapore. They are against EU-Canada. They are against EU-South Africa. They are against EU-Korea. In fact, I have gone back 15 years, and I cannot find a single trade deal that the SNP has ever supported or voted for, so it is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to come along today and say that the deals have not been rolled over—none of which he supported in the first place. The SNP is anti-trade, it is hellbent on breaking up our Union and it is against Scotland’s best economic interests.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

Pursuing accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is a Government priority and a key part of our trade negotiations programme. We have engaged with all 11 member countries at both ministerial and official level to discuss UK accession, including the first ever meeting of senior officials between CPTPP members and a non-member on 9 September, and all members have welcome the UK’s interest.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for the update. However, when the non-partisan Centre for Economic Policy Research assessed the United States accession to the original and similar trans-Pacific partnership trade deal, it concluded that wages might rise for the top 10% of earners but fall for everybody else. What assessment has his Department made of the impact of CPTPP accession on income levels in the UK, and what guarantees can he give that worsening income inequality would not be a consequence here?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting question. I have not seen that study on the original TPP, but I will say two things. First, when the UK applies, we will be publishing a scoping assessment—an impact assessment—looking at how the deal will affect the UK economy. Secondly, liberal-minded, like-minded democracies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand have embraced CPTPP with great enthusiasm, which gives me some encouragement in this space.

[Stewart Hosie]

It is just not the UK that is seeking to join CPTPP; Thailand, for example, is actively investigating it. Thailand’s faculty of pharmaceutical sciences has assessed that because of the way CPTPP rules on patents and on market approval for generic drugs that impact on Government procurement and so on work, the costs of drugs would rise. Given the Bangkok Post headline that CPTPP would lead to “soaring” drugs bills, what guarantees can the Minister give that a similar rise in the cost of medicines to the NHS, for the same reasons, would not be the consequence here?

[Greg Hands]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Nothing in any trade deal prevents us from setting domestic pharmaceutical prices, and that would remain true in respect of CPTPP. Let me have a look at why the Scottish National party is questioning the potential to join CPTPP. I have the feeling that the SNP is just not in favour of any trade agreements; I have had a look at CPTPP members, and the SNP was against doing a deal with Canada, against doing a deal with Japan in Brussels and against doing a deal with Singapore. So I feel that whatever intricate, detailed questions he has on CPTPP, he will not support our joining it.

Trade Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stewart Hosie]

Amendment 35 would establish a fixed period of office for members of the TRA and make provision for one further period of office. The reason is rather obvious. Introducing a fixed term would give TRA members greater security of tenure and therefore reinforce their independence and impartiality, as their duration of service could not be—or certainly could not be perceived to be—at ministerial discretion.

Amendment 36 would insert wording stating that a person should be considered unable or unfit if the chair is satisfied regarding any of the following matters: that the member becomes insolvent, has been convicted of a criminal offence or is

“otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member or is unsuitable to continue as a member.”

The effect would be to define, to a greater extent at least, the meaning of “unable or unfit” in paragraphs 9 and 10 of schedule 4. Introducing a definition of “unable or unfit” would provide greater legal certainty about the circumstances in which a person may be removed from office as a non-executive or executive member of the TRA.

In keeping with the amendments and new clauses that I have spoken to so far, I do not intend to divide the Committee on amendments 35 or 36, but I ask the Minister to consider carefully how the Government might bring forward amendments at a later stage to deal with the matters of a fixed term for, and legal certainty on dismissal from, the TRA. Doing so would remove the perception that a term on the TRA, or dismissal from it, might be based on any political consideration—a perception that would weaken the credibility of the TRA—and strengthen the independence of that body. That is vital, particularly as the TRA will be invited to consider the vexed issue of some questionable, and potentially illegal, trade practices. The TRA’s credibility will be incredibly important when that particular work is undertaken, especially in the absence of a fully functioning WTO appellate board.

The Government should look again, as the Bill progresses through the other place and on Report, at how a fixed term for members might be introduced and at how legal certainty on dismissal might also be written into the Bill.

[Greg Hands]

Clause 5 will allow the TRA to be established as a new non-departmental public body, and schedule 4 outlines its governance arrangements. Those include detailing how TRA members will be appointed and how the terms and conditions of their appointment will be established. Such provisions should be familiar to those with experience of working with similar bodies.

It is crucial that the right people are appointed as members of the TRA. We are committed to appointing on merit following fair and open competition. That is why we are following standard Cabinet Office guidelines on the appointment of members of the TRA, as set out in the “Governance Code on Public Appointments”, which states that it is usual for Ministers to decide on the length of tenure. The code also sets out

“a strong presumption that no individual should serve more than two terms or serve in any one post for more than ten years”,

other than in exceptional circumstances.

Appointments will be independently regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments to ensure that the rigorous principles of public appointments and the “Governance Code on Public Appointments” are applied. Beyond that, the Government and the TRA will have regard to the need to protect the resilience of the board and to ensure that there is a managed turnover of members now and in the future. That may mean, for example, that it is sensible to make some of the initial appointments to the board shorter than five years to stagger any turnover in membership.

Specifying those details in the contractual terms for each appointment is the best way to ensure the flexibility to get the organisation off to the best start. The role of the TRA chair designate is crucial in shaping and forming the board. It is therefore only right that the Secretary of State does that through the terms and conditions for each role in consultation with the chair designate, rather than binding their hands in legislation. We are working closely with the TRA’s chair designate, Simon Walker, to start the recruitment of the rest of the TRA board members in due course. We will specify the duration of appointments as part of that process.

By contrast, amendment 35 would replace the contractual terms for all TRA members with a fixed statutory period of either five or 10 years, with no provision for any other length of tenure. That would deny the TRA the flexibility that it needs, particularly now when we are trying to ensure the best possible start for the new organisation, but such a rigid approach would be detrimental to its good governance at any time.

Amendment 36 seeks to specify a number of criteria that would deem a member of the TRA board unfit to continue in their position. Schedule 4 already provides for the Secretary of State to remove non-executive members, and for the chair to remove executive members, from the board should they be deemed unable or unfit to carry out the functions of the office. That approach will be familiar to hon. Members from the legislation establishing organisations such as the Competition and Markets Authority.

As with all public appointments, the terms and conditions for the non-executive members of the TRA are being developed in line with the “Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies”, which clearly sets out the standards expected from those who serve on the boards of non-departmental public bodies. The code provides that members of the board must inform the sponsor Department of any bankruptcy, unspent criminal conviction or disqualification as a company director in advance of appointment, or should any such instances occur during the appointment.

The code does not expressly specify that those issues determine an individual’s fitness to serve on a board or that they should be regarded as grounds for terminating an appointment, but I assure the Committee that the Government consider that that should be the case. That is why the terms and conditions of Simon Walker, the TRA chair designate, provide that the Secretary of State may terminate his appointment in those circumstances. It is very much our expectation that the relevant terms of appointment for other non-executive members will follow a similar approach.

The appointment of executive members is a matter for the TRA chair. It is therefore appropriate that the terms and conditions of their employment are managed by the TRA in a way that enables flexibility, while holding its staff to the necessary standards of integrity and professionalism.

I hope that the demonstrates to the hon. Member for Dundee East that we are establishing the TRA in accordance with the existing codes and in line with the practices adopted in other such bodies. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Stewart Hosie]

I have no intention of pressing the amendments. I listened carefully as the Minister rattled through that answer. I have no doubt that, with the exception of the specific point he made about staggering five-year terms at the very beginning, things are being done in line with guidance that has been used previously. However, that does not really answer the point that, because of the ministerial discretion, particularly on the removal of a member, there may still be a perception, real or otherwise, that members can be removed for considerations that are political and nothing to do with their actual unfitness to serve.

While I will not divide the Committee on the amendment, notwithstanding that the Minister read his answer very quickly, the Government may want to seriously consider how these matters are addressed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

It is important, as we turn to the data-sharing powers of the Bill, that the Government have a more comprehensive understanding of UK exporters so that our work to build and grow UK export capability is properly targeted at and tailored to those businesses where it will deliver the maximum benefit.

Clause 7 sets out the powers needed for the Government to collect data to establish the number and identity of UK businesses exporting goods and services, particularly smaller businesses and sole traders, who may not be readily identifiable from existing data, but who may need a helping hand from the Government to develop their export potential reaching into existing and new markets. The clause provides the ability for HMRC to collect relevant data by tick boxes on existing tax returns.

Amendment 32 would restrict the Government’s ability to implement new questions to gather data on exporters at speed, by requiring Treasury Ministers to seek further consultations with stakeholders after any necessary engagement has already concluded—it would be, if you like, an additional round of consultation, which we do not think is necessary. Such an amendment would duplicate the administrative burden on stakeholders and, more importantly, delay the availability of data and, by extension, the benefits to businesses.

Amendments 33 and 34 are closely related and concern legal professional privilege, which the hon. Member for Dundee East will know is a long-standing principle that protects the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their lay clients, and vice versa. It enables lawyers to consult and advise their clients without clients fearing that their information will later have to be disclosed. Indeed, it is a matter of general interest that any person who wishes to consult a lawyer must be free to do so under conditions that ensure uninhibited discussion. That principle is recognised and protected under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

I can provide an absolute assurance to the Committee that the Government have no intention, either now or in the future, of using these powers to seek or share information that is protected by legal professional privilege. For clause 7, the information that has been requested from exporters is for trade statistics purposes and will be provided voluntarily. The fact that the information is being provided voluntarily is perhaps an indication of the Government’s position in respect of minimising burdens and therefore not requiring privileged information to be disclosed.

Clause 8 allows for the sharing of data that is already held by HMRC for its administrative functions. We are talking about data to be shared that has already been collected. Such information cannot therefore be subject to legal professional privilege, as it has already been provided to HMRC.

I will take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that the clauses also provide significant assurances on the collection, handling and processing of information collected under the powers. The data-sharing powers in the Bill are permissive, so all instances of data sharing must be approved by HMRC, which acts as guardian of the data. There are criminal penalties for any unauthorised sharing of data under the existing Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which apply in respect to the data shared under clause 8. Nothing in the clause permits the disclosure of information that is not otherwise permitted in data protection laws, including the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

I hope the clarification and assurances given provide the hon. Gentleman with the reassurance he is seeking in respect of legal professional privilege. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the Minister for his commitment in relation to legal professional privilege, confirming that information can be shared between a client and a lawyer and, unless in the course of a criminal investigation, is completely protected. That is a good commitment to receive.

I also understand what the Minister said about information being collected to provide trade statistics on a voluntary basis. That is helpful, but I was slightly concerned at the beginning when he spoke about trying to identify the number and identity of exporters—one would have thought that the Government already knew that, and it is slightly concerning if they do not. It might be useful to understand what gaps there are in the Government’s understanding of what organisations export, what they export and to whom, but that is for another day. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I think people are deeply concerned. No matter how many times Ministers give assurances from the Dispatch Box or elsewhere—Conservative MPs know this—because of what is said by our negotiating partners, there is deep concern among the public and, in particular, those who work in agriculture about standards that may be reduced. My hon. Friend is therefore absolutely right that by accepting various amendments or new clauses, the Government have an opportunity to cement our standards and rule out in negotiations the reduction of standards rather than simply by words in a speech.

New clause 12 in effect does two things: it affirms the UK’s rights and obligations under the agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures in appendix 1A of the WTO agreement; and it prohibits the import of food into the UK if standards in the exporting country are lower than those in force here. I do not think there is anything contentious about that, nor do many people in the real world. I suspect the Minister will not be at all surprised that various campaign groups, including Global Justice Now and the Trade Justice Moment, support such objectives.

The list of supporters for such measures is deep and wide. Scottish Land & Estates said:

“Scotland’s producers need guarantees from the UK Government that domestic production and environmental standards are upheld as part of future international trade deals. Our extremely high environmental and food safety standards are amongst our key selling points, and this must be protected after we leave the EU to ensure we don’t find ourselves in a ‘race to the bottom’.”

As NFU Scotland has said that it is concerned that the UK Government’s approach to future trade policy creates the potential for the importation of agri-food into the UK produced to an inequivalent and uncompetitive standard of production, one would think the UK Government should listen. The new clause would ensure that the UK Government had a duty to protect the quality of domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are currently. I commend it to the Committee.

[Greg Hands]

I turn to new clauses 9, 11 and 17. I am aware of the strength of feeling from colleagues on both sides of the Committee on this important issue. I spoke about the commitments the Prime Minister gave in his Greenwich speech to upholding high standards, which were also in our manifesto.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

The wording that the Minister uses is fascinating. We were talking about production standards. He spoke about production methods. Those are not the same thing.

[Greg Hands]

I am happy to have a debate with the hon. Gentleman about the difference between standards and methods, but I am not sure that the difference is that big.

The dictation of our domestic standards to our trading partners might well appear a laudable goal, but the new clause would require them to keep aligned with just seven days’ notice. Subsection (3) of the new clause states that a register

“must be updated within seven days of any amendment to any standard listed in the register.”

Our trading partners’ standards would therefore have to remain dynamically aligned to our domestic production standards with just seven days’ notice. That could have serious consequences for our existing trade flows, let alone anything negotiated in the future.

This is true for the developing world. The beans that we can buy at Waitrose in Fulham—I imagine that they are similar to the ones at Waitrose in Putney, for example—come from Kenya and Egypt. The last time I bought beans was at the weekend. Bananas from the Caribbean might not have production standards that are the same as those in the UK, but they can still meet our import standards.

Those markets would not be able to keep up with our changes. Given just five days’ notice, they would have to dynamically align with whatever the UK decided and, within seven days, make the changes to their domestic production standards. That strikes me as being wholly impractical. The impact of the new clauses could be severe on livelihoods in the developing world. I invite Opposition Members to go and see some of the Kenyan or Egyptian beans being produced and tell some of those workers that, as a consequence of new clause 9, they might well find themselves having to align with UK production standards in the future.

The new clauses might have been drafted with the US in mind, but this is UK law and it would apply to all our trading partners. These measures would likely render inoperable the very continuity agreements we have been discussing and, indeed, potentially prevent a deal with the EU itself. There would be an irony in the UK, through our domestic law, seeking the EU to dynamically align with our standards.

As I said on Tuesday, the UK banned veal crates some 16 years before the EU, and we can take great pride in that; it is a great achievement. The idea that the EU would sign a trade deal with us whereby it would have to commit to dynamic alignment with our standards with just seven days’ notice is highly questionable, to say the least. Members who want continuity with those 40 deals should not vote for these new clauses, nor should those who want a trade deal with the European Union.

New clause 9 would have the unwanted effect of discouraging partners with whom we are yet to sign a continuity agreement from negotiating with us. This Government were elected on a manifesto promise that, in our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards, and we will not. Parliament will have significant oversight of any regulations made under this power, and any statutory instruments brought forward will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Given our robust commitment to British food and farming, I ask the hon. Member for Sefton Central to withdraw the new clause.

Like new clause 9, new clause 11 stipulates that all food imported to the UK should be held to the same standards as that which is produced in the UK. The proposal stands in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee East, although I suspect he has the same intentions as the hon. Member for Sefton Central in tabling it. I have already provided assurances that EU import standards, praised by the NFU and others, will be replicated in domestic law at the end of the transition period. Our import requirements include a ban on using artificial growth hormones in domestic and imported products, and any changes to existing legislation would require new legislation to be passed by Parliament.

Given that we have high safety standards in place, and that the wider unintended consequence of the new clause would be to threaten both the resilience of our food supply chains and our opportunity to ensure that we secure continuity for British businesses and customers through our ongoing continuity negotiations, I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee East will not press the new clause.

New clause 17 stipulates that any animal welfare or sentience regulations arising from trade agreements must be aligned with existing commitments in UK and retained EU law. I can assure Members that our world-leading animal welfare standards are at the heart of our continuity negotiations. None of the agreements already signed with 48 countries is inconsistent with existing standards, as the parliamentary reports published alongside those agreements demonstrate. In fact, the UK has some of the most comprehensive animal welfare regulation in the world. We have introduced one of the strictest ivory bans in the world and we have a manifesto commitment to end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening. World Animal Protection rated the UK as having the joint-highest animal welfare standards in the world, tied with Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.

I share Members’ desire to ensure safeguards both for British consumers and for farmers. However, the protections we are already putting in place, coupled with the unintended consequences of the proposals, mean that these measures would be of no benefit. Our manifesto commitment is clear: the Government will stand firm in trade negotiations to support farmers, protect consumers and safeguard standards. I hope that that explanation, alongside the 20 continuity agreements that Parliament ratified, provides reassurance to the Committee that the Government’s commitment to maintaining standards is being delivered. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their proposals to the vote.

Trade Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

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

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but there is no way of knowing whether the UK-Japan agreement will be significantly different, because it is yet to be negotiated. We are trying to get an enhanced agreement with Japan, but that negotiation is under way. It is be impossible to speculate in what way, or to what degree, it will be different from the EU agreement. We are hoping for an enhanced FTA, and we believe there is further to go with Japan on that, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s request would be appropriate.

[Stewart Hosie]

Taking what the Minister has said at face value, it is true that reports have been published, but the affirmative resolution process that he spoke about is effectively a “take it or leave it” option. There is no ability for Members to amend what the Government have proposed. If the Government were to use clause 2(6)(a) to modify retained legislation, we would be given no more than the opportunity to take or leave something that may look considerably different from the pre-existing arrangement we had through the European Union.

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I plan to come to constraints on that power shortly. He rightly said that on the face of it, the power is broad, but there are significant constraints on its use. We must not forget that the continuity agreements are already in effect, and have already been scrutinised through previous processes in both the Commons and the Lords.

I draw the Committee’s attention to our track record. Of the 20 signed continuity agreements passed through CRAG, their lordships have recommended six for the attention of Parliament, most recently the UK-Morocco association agreement on 9 March 2020. As I have said, not a single one of those debates carried a motion of regret. Due to the limited scope of the continuity agreements for which we intend to use the clause 2 power and the existing opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny, the scrutiny procedure set out by the Opposition in new clause 5, to which I will turn in due course, would be disproportionate and unnecessary. That consequently means that amendment 4 is unnecessary.

I will now turn to amendment 5, which would seek to bring new FTAs within the scope of the Bill. The Government are only seeking a power in this Bill to ensure the continuity of trading relations with our existing partners, with whom we previously traded as a member of the EU. The Bill is not, and never was in its previous form, a vehicle to implement agreements with partners, such as the USA, that did not have a trade agreement with the EU before 31 January 2020.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I was being very generous in saying that my door was open, but it is not open to discuss the content of the current negotiations with the US. That, of course, is a matter—in the proper way—for statements to Parliament, but that is a live negotiation, so what may or may not be in that negotiation is probably a matter for that negotiation.

We laid out our negotiation objectives, in a document that I commend to the hon. Gentleman, on 2 March. It lays out our objectives in the talks, which are live at the moment, so it would be inappropriate for me to go down that road. However, my door remains open to having further discussions with all the Opposition parties about the scrutiny of future free trade agreements.

[Stewart Hosie]

I think the Minister is inadvertently getting to the nub of the concerns of many people both in Parliament and outside. It is all very well him saying, “We have published this, and we have made these statements to Parliament”, but does he not recognise that simply publishing what are no more than heads of terms for negotiations, and then updates that say “Everything’s going swimmingly”, really does not cut the mustard?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I am glad that he made it, because I will take him back five years to a very interesting negotiation that I had with his friend, John Swinney, which was a negotiation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It related to the Scottish fiscal framework: how exactly Scotland’s finances and support from Westminster would work in coming years. We—John Swinney and I—agreed that it was a negotiation between two Governments, and it was not appropriate to publish text during the course of the negotiation. We would both provide general updates on the progress of the negotiation, rather than constant updates on text. That approach led to us getting a good agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. I think both Governments were not entirely satisfied with it, but both could live with it. That shows the way forward, rather than publishing after each negotiation round, or mid-negotiation, what the latest text or approach is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the important issues raised in the amendments, which I think are fundamentally on different topics from those that we have dealt with for much of today. There is significant common ground between the Government and the Opposition parties. I welcome the hon. Member for Dundee East to the debate, for his first contribution today. It was noticeable that he chose not to take part in the chaos that ensued earlier when the main Opposition party’s Front Benchers struggled with whether they are for or against the Canada agreement and so on. He wisely decided to sit that one out.

Under the UK constitution, the negotiation of international trade agreements is, as I have already made clear, a prerogative power of the UK Government. It is also a reserved matter, where the UK Government act on behalf of the whole UK. When exercising that reserved power, the Government have made clear that they will deliver trade agreements that benefit all parts of the UK—I have already referred to the scoping assessment for the US deal, showing that Scotland would be the nation or region of the UK that benefited most—unleashing the potential of businesses from all four countries of the United Kingdom.

I recognise the important role that the devolved Administrations can and should play in that endeavour, not only as representatives of their respective nations’ interest, but because we know our trade deals will interact with areas of devolved competence. As such, my Department has worked and will continue to work closely with the DAs on our trade policy.

Turning to new clause 16, I will explain why I think it is unnecessary and impractical, although the principle of engagement behind it is one that I share. The new clause seeks to create a statutory role for a joint committee of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations as a forum to discuss trade policy, but such an arrangement is already in place.

During the passage of the Trade Bill 2017-19, the previous Secretary of State for Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), committed to establishing a new bespoke ministerial forum for trade with the devolved Administrations, in recognition of the importance of this relationship. That forum had its inaugural meeting in January and meets regularly to discuss our approach to trade negotiations, including key areas such as our objectives for the US trade agreement.

I am also happy to put on record my commitment to continuing to work closely with the devolved Administrations at all stages of trade negotiations, not only through the ministerial forum for trade, but via bilateral ad hoc engagement to reflect the sometimes fast-paced nature of trade negotiations. Indeed, I spoke about the US free trade agreement with all my counterparts in the devolved Administrations last month and have also recently written about the Trade Bill and other trade policy issues.

My former ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) travelled to Belfast in February to meet colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to discuss trade policy. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Dundee East, I restate the commitments made by my right hon. Friend, when he was a Minister, in his March letter to the Scottish Minister Ivan McKee.

In short, we are already delivering the engagement envisaged by proposed new clause, and we have achieved that while continuing to observe the important constitutional principles enshrined in the devolution settlements. In contrast, this proposed new clause would give the devolved Administrations a statutory role in the reserved area of international trade negotiations, which would be constitutionally inappropriate.

Nor is this proposed new clause practical. It would lock us and the DAs into prescribed ways of working under the existing intergovernmental memorandum of understanding, a document last updated in 2013. It would constrain our ability to develop and adapt bespoke engagement mechanisms as we embark on negotiating our first UK trade agreements for more than a generation.

Turning to amendment 8, the powers created by this legislation will be used for the purpose of transitioning trade agreements with those countries that the UK had agreements with through its membership of the EU. That will ensure certainty, continuity and stability in our trade and investment relationships for businesses, citizens and trading partners in all parts of the UK.

As parts of these agreements touch on devolved matters, this legislation will create concurrent powers. We have sought to put in place concurrent powers to provide greater flexibility in how transitional agreements are implemented, allowing each devolved Administration to implement the agreements independently in some cases, while also allowing the UK Government to legislate on a UK-wide basis where it makes practical sense to do so. This approach permits greater administrative efficiency, reducing the volume of legislation brought through the UK Parliament and through the devolved legislatures.

I recognise that the devolved Administrations and members of this Committee seek reassurance that those powers will be used appropriately. The Government have already made clear that we will not normally use them to legislate within devolved areas without the consent of the relevant devolved Administration or Administrations, and never without consulting them first. I am, of course, happy to restate that commitment here.

It is not appropriate, however, to put that commitment on a statutory footing, as, like new clause 16, it would give the devolved Administrations a statutory role in the reserved area of international trade, undermining the important constitutional principles enshrined in the devolution settlements. We recognise that the technical implementation of international obligations in devolved areas is a devolved matter. However, as I have explained, the decision on which international obligations the UK enters into is a reserved matter and a prerogative power exercisable only by the UK Government. This rightly ensures that the UK Government can speak with a single voice under international law, providing certainty for our negotiating partners and the strongest possible negotiating position for the whole of the UK, for the benefit of all of the UK.

A statutory consent provision in the Bill would in effect give the devolved Administrations a veto over a reserved matter. This would be highly constitutionally inappropriate and could lead to a situation where international agreements applied in some parts of the UK but not others. This would be a fundamental weakening of our Union and the long-established principle that in the matter of international relations the UK Government negotiate for all parts of the UK.

Additionally, placing the commitment on a statutory footing could open us up to convoluted and lengthy procedures in which the courts were asked to determine in minute detail what was reserved and what was devolved. This is disproportionate and would create significant uncertainty for UK businesses, undermining the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to maximise certainty and continuity of trading arrangements. Our commitment to not normally legislate in areas of devolved competence without consent, and never without consultation, strikes the proper balance between providing sufficient reassurance to the devolved Administrations while preserving international relations as a reserved matter. It is a sincere commitment that we will honour, as we have honoured the commitments made to the devolved Administrations on the Trade Bill 2017-19.

For example, we committed to seeking suggestions from the devolved Administrations on the optimal way of recruiting non-executive members for the Trade Remedies Authority, which we will discuss on Thursday, with regional knowledge, skills and experience, and we fulfilled that earlier this year.

Our new independent trade policy absolutely calls for engagement with the devolved Administrations and respect for the important role that they can and should play, but it does not call for fundamental shifts in the nature of devolution or the weakening of powers that Parliament agreed should remain reserved to the UK Government. We have worked collaboratively with all the DAs to ensure that the Bill enables us to transition arrangements in a way that delivers for the whole UK. Our existing commitments, which I have restated today, provide sufficient reassurance to the devolved Administrations on the issues covered by the amendments. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Welsh Government have recommended consent to the relevant clauses of the Bill.

I hope I have been able to satisfy hon. Members that we have recognised and met their objectives in this amendment and that the hon. Member for Dundee East will withdraw it.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the Minister for reconfirming the non-legislative commitments made by his predecessor in his letter to Ivan McKee. That has genuinely helped. However, the Minister falls back on the argument that bespoke powers are better than a permanent credible structure. I disagree. I think a permanent credible structure provides more stability and certainty than the bespoke ad hoc use of powers and discussions from time to time. However, in the current devolved process, I recognise that international treaties are reserved matters. I absolutely understand and respect that, but he knows as well as anyone who might be listening that the interface of the intersection between an international trade treaty and a devolved competence might be fairly high. That is all the more reason for structured statutory formal engagement rather than an ad hoc bespoke process, which may or may not satisfy one or more parties, or one or more of the nations, in the UK about the Government’s actions over a given international trade agreement.

Although I do not intend to press the matter to a vote, and I thank the Minister sincerely for the commitments he has restated, there is a fundamental difference of opinion on the bespoke ad hoc approach being suggested and a formal statutory structure, and I am sure we will return to that theme on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Maria Caulfield.)

Trade Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

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

[Greg Hands]

It is a good question, but the assurance I would give is that our intention is to join the GPA with substantially the same arrangements as we currently have as members of the EU. That will give the assurance of continuity as we move forward.

The power in the clause is appropriately drafted to ensure that our international obligations will be fully complied with, including by making changes to national law, where appropriate, using the power in this clause. The use of the power is expressed in the usual way. I say to the hon. Member for Dundee East that we have expressed these powers using quite a usual formulation, allowing authorities to make regulations in the circumstances set out. If the wording were to be changed from “may” to “must”, as proposed in the amendment and as he suggests, changes would need to be made in all circumstances covered by clause 1. There would, however, be certain circumstances where it would not be appropriate or necessary for regulations to be made. For example, a dispute with another party might be resolved without the need to make any changes at all to domestic regulations. Likewise, not all modifications of another party’s appendix I will require changes to domestic law. On that basis, I ask the him to withdraw the amendment.

[Stewart Hosie]

I make a number of observations. The Minister said that the Bill was about continuity. If I take that at face value, as I do, it strengthens the case for the relevant authority being required to make the necessary regulatory changes. He also said that the flexibility allows the relevant authority to respond to specific circumstances, but if those change, there are lots of reasons why it should—absolutely must—make the necessary regulations to respond to those changes. The final argument the Minister made does not hold water:

“An appropriate authority”—

must—

“by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate”.

So if a circumstance stands changed where the relevant authority did not deem it appropriate to make a change, it would not be required to do so.

The hon. Member for Harrow West said that the amendment might encourage more businesses to take advantage of procurement opportunity. It would not do so directly, but, certainly, if the relevant authorities were required to do something, it might act as a nudge measure to encourage businesses to look at those procurement opportunities.

I will do what I said at the beginning: I will not seek to press these matters to a Division now, but I will ponder on the Minister’s answer. I am sure he will consult others and ponder further, and we may have a similar debate on Third Reading. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I have already set out for the Committee the benefits of GPA membership. It is an agreement that mutually opens government procurement markets between its parties. Preserving the UK’s membership of the GPA will keep these markets open to UK businesses, ensuring that they continue to have guaranteed access to approximately £1.3 trillion per year in procurement opportunities, as well as delivering value for money to the UK taxpayer. I am slightly perturbed by the Opposition’s approach to the GPA, given that they voted against the provisions during proceedings on the 2017-19 Trade Bill. I do not believe that it is appropriate or sensible for UK businesses from across the country to be denied access to the procurement opportunities provided for by the GPA.

New clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 14 would place a legal duty on the Government to carry out reviews of the social, environmental, public health, SME, equalities and economic impacts of any regulations made under clause 1(1). First, let me assure the Committee that a detailed impact assessment of these powers relating to the UK’s independent accession to the GPA has already been carried out and published prior to the introduction of the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee agreed with the assessment that the implementation of our independent accession to the GPA would have no direct impacts, since it simply ensures the continuation of existing arrangements after the transition period.

As I have set out, clause 1 will allow the Government to implement the UK’s independent GPA membership in domestic law, and therefore to respond appropriately to a limited set of circumstances within the GPA. The circumstances in which the powers could be used after accession are set out in the Bill and largely concern technical or administrative modifications—for example, to reflect changes in the names of Government entities as a result of machinery of government reorganisation, which all Governments engage in. The shadow Minister is right that my arguments have inadvertently drifted from being about this group of new clauses to being about the previous group, but it is an excellent argument, and no harm has been caused by making it twice. Such modifications will have no significant—if any—social, environmental, public health, SME, equalities or other economic impacts.

Aside from regulations relating to technical changes, the powers in clause 1 will also allow the Government to make the necessary amendments to domestic law to reflect new parties joining or withdrawing from the GPA. Without the power, we would be unable to meet our obligations in relation to those acceding to the GPA. As well as being unable to give rights of access to public contracts to bidders from joining members, we would also be unable to remove rights of access to bidders from those members who had left. I am sure the Committee will agree that that cannot be a situation we find ourselves in. Recognising concerns that regulations made to reflect new accessions could have material impacts, however, we will engage the International Trade Committee and the House of Lords treaties Sub-Committee in advance of any new party acceding to the GPA. This will provide ample opportunity to explore potential impacts before any regulations are made.

[Stewart Hosie]

May I ask a brief question? Is the Chair of the International Trade Committee aware of the obligation that he will have to consider this in advance?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I do not know whether the Chair of the Committee was aware of that, but he is now and I think he will welcome the change. He is always somebody who likes to be consulted, as we well know, so I think he would agree with me that this is a welcome move for additional consultation.

I have set out that the powers in clause 1 can be useful, but I want to be clear with the Committee about what they cannot be used for. The clause 1 powers cannot be used to implement any wholesale renegotiation of the GPA, or of the UK’s market access offer. Any such changes would require further primary legislation.

I hope I have persuaded the Committee that there would be no benefit in carrying out extensive reviews after regulations under clause 1(1) have been made. I ask that hon. Members do not press their new clauses to a Division, and I commend clause 1 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

Speaking to amendment 30, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee East, I can assure him that all regulations made under the clause 2 power to implement international trade agreements will be both necessary and appropriate. The power is needed to implement obligations arising from continuity trade agreements into domestic law over time and in all circumstances. Our expectation is that the power will be mainly used for obligations relating to procurement or mutual recognition of product conformity assessments. To be clear, it cannot be used to implement tariff-related provisions. Without such an ability to make changes, the UK would be at risk of being in breach of our international obligations. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that that does not happen. The proposed amendment would prevent that by constraining the vires or scope of the regulations that can be made under clause 2, particularly when using the concurrent powers to legislate in areas of devolved competence.

I can assure colleagues that the powers in the Bill will be used in a proportionate way and that consultation with colleagues in the devolved Governments and elsewhere is a fundamental part of our approach. The Government view “appropriate” and “necessary” as synonymous, and our intent is only to make use of the regulation power where it is needed to fulfil obligations under agreements. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Dundee East to withdraw his amendment.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the Minister for his response and I will take his assurances at face value. I just say to him that the objective not to use this to change tariffs is not one of the exclusions in clause 2 in relation to the implementation of trade agreements. The Government might want to look again later in our proceedings at how exclusions to the use of this power are documented in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

Amendment 31, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee East, seeks, as he pointed out, to modify the definition of an international trade agreement. Our definition of an international trade agreement is drafted so that it will sufficiently capture the range of agreements that we currently access through the European Union. That includes free trade agreements but also stand-alone mutual recognition agreements, or MRAs. By changing the definition, the amendment would limit important elements of trade that businesses and consumers rely on.

As Members know, provisions under free trade agreements are wider than simply goods and services; the point was made by the hon. Member for Dundee East. That is an essential fact of modern trade agreements that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment overlooks. The amendment would create an unnecessary risk that important agreements became out of scope of the powers, leaving us unable to ensure continuity of trading relationships for UK businesses and consumers. He drew attention to tariffs but, legally, we cannot use clause 2 for tariffs, as he knows, because that has to come under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018.

Amendment 15 seeks to limit the range of agreements that the UK will be able to sign outside FTAs. Specifically, again, that would have an impact on our stand-alone mutual recognition agreements. As Members will be aware, the UK has signed agreements that replicate the effects of existing EU arrangements for mutual recognition of conformity assessment. Those arrangements ensure continuity for UK manufacturers and businesses, meaning that they are able to continue having UK testing bodies certify that their products meet the regulations of other countries. The alternative would be to send our products for testing in other countries, significantly increasing costs and making many exports unviable.

The international trade agreement power enables continuity agreements to come into effect. That includes continuity MRAs. Amendment 15 therefore risks the UK being unable to fulfil obligations arising from continuity MRAs. If stand-alone mutual recognition agreements were taken out of the scope of the power, the UK would not be able to amend product-specific UK legislation to ensure that we were able to implement fully our obligations stemming from the continuity MRAs. Not only would that harm the UK’s standing on the international stage but, more importantly, it would materially impact on UK businesses and their employees at a time when they need to be able to maintain and grow their trading relations. No member of the Committee would want to see that.

An example of that power are the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 2016 as covered by the mutual recognition agreement that the EU has with the United States, which reduces regulatory barriers to trade for goods such as microwave ovens. We seek to replicate the effects of that MRA, allowing businesses and consumers to continue to benefit.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee about the reasoning behind the Government’s approach. I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

[Stewart Hosie]

May I make an observation? Clearly, my amendment was driven by the lack of clarity on the face of the Bill, compared with the more elegant phraseology in the explanatory notes. The hon. Member for Harrow West spoke about investment treaties and the Minister himself about MRAs, but the fact that investment treaties and MRAs are not included in the definition—although the Minister says that it is wide enough to capture everything—probably tells us that there is an issue of public understanding of the definition of a trade agreement in the Bill.

It might be that better can be done, however it is done, and more clarity provided as to what precisely the Bill intends to cover by way of treaties in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

Thursday 5th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Greg Hands)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. When I was previously in this job, I visited the sector in Cambridgeshire. We know that the life sciences industry contributes £74 billion a year to the economy, creating 250,000 jobs and developing life-saving medicines for UK patients. Annually, the east of England exports £711 million of medical and pharmaceutical products to the US. Estimates show that a UK-US FTA could boost the whole region’s economy by £345 million in the long run.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State update the House on the progress being made to ensure that the legal services trade between the UK and the European Union can be maintained after the end of this year?

[Greg Hands]

That is properly a question for a different Question Time, because it is Taskforce Europe that is responsible for our future trading relations with the European Union. What I can say to the hon. Member is that the mutual recognition of professional qualifications is one of the key aspects we are looking at in free trade agreements with counterparties across the world.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am glad that that is being looked at because, right now, if an agreement is not reached between the UK and the European Union, UK legal practitioners—lawyers—will no longer be protected by legal or professional privilege inside the European Union. May we have a specific focus on that to ensure that jeopardy is removed, but also, more importantly, to ensure that the associated disincentive to trade in legal services is removed?

[Greg Hands]

Again, this is really a matter for Taskforce Europe, but I will pass on the hon. Member’s question to it to give him a more detailed response. What I can say is that the DIT team promote trade in legal services, particularly the mutual recognition of qualifications, in all our talks. I have done that personally in this role, and the Secretary of State is committed to doing so. We make sure that this is promoted, particularly regulator to regulator, including for legal services, accountancy, architecture and all our professional services.

European Affairs

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I am going to make a bit of progress.

I am going to give a few examples of our work around Europe. I promoted the UK’s defence industry in Sweden, visiting Saab, whose new generation Gripen fighter jet could be worth £1.1 billion to UK industry. I and my colleagues engaged with the Polish Government directly on behalf of UK companies to discuss high-value retail opportunities in the Czech Republic—in Czech, I might add, Madam Deputy Speaker. I and my colleagues from DIT and the Department for Exiting the European Union have addressed chambers of commerce right the way across the European Union—in Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, among many others. I enjoyed making use of my language skills when I gave speeches in German to senior business leaders in Munich, Düsseldorf, Osnabrück, Tegernsee and so on.

DIT’s relationship with Europe does not just extend to export and investment promotion. The vote to leave the EU was not a vote to undermine the EU. It is very important to understand that it is in this country’s interest to have a strong and effective EU. We continue to engage constructively in ongoing EU trade policy, as we currently are a full and equal member of the EU. As the House heard on Monday, we are working closely with our European partners as well as bilaterally to respond to President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminium.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I will make a bit more progress. We are committed to ratifying the CETA agreement with Canada, which provisionally came into effect in September. I was delighted that we were joined by 86 Labour MPs—many of whom are in the Chamber at the moment—who, in defiance of their Front-Bench team, supported the EU’s trade agenda in making sure that CETA was passed. In defiance of the party Whip, they voted for that important agreement with Justin Trudeau’s Canada.

We are supportive of the EU’s work to sign third-country trade agreements in future, and I have attended four Trade Ministers’ Foreign Affairs Councils, which included discussion of these. The Commission has been particularly focusing on agreements with South America’s Mercosur union and with Mexico. We continue to support the ongoing negotiations for both free trade agreements. On Mexico, we would like to see progress made wherever possible in the negotiations, although we recognise the complexity of North American Free Trade Agreement renegotiations running in parallel. We will continue our support for EU-Mercosur trade negotiations and would like to emphasise the urgent need to progress the trade components. It is essential to keep momentum and to achieve a swift political agreement.

Another high-profile agreement is the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement, which the Commission is strongly pushing to fast-track, so that it can be signed during Japan’s Prime Minister Abe’s visit to Brussels in July 2018. As a champion of free trade, the UK has been one of the strongest advocates—actually, I believe the strongest advocate—of this EPA, and we warmly welcome the work of both sides to reach this agreement, which will support global prosperity. We continue to engage constructively on EU business and with our European partners, and we continue to push UK trade and investment to businesses on the European continent. It is important that our trade engagement includes Europe, because our trade with Europe—our nearest and largest neighbour—will always be of great importance.

I often hear the criticism that trade deals outside the EU cannot make up for a loss in EU trade—that has already been referred to in a couple of interventions—but, as I say, this is not an either/or choice. I can assure the House that the Government fully understand the importance of European trade. The EU is our largest trading partner, accounting for 43% of our exports and 54% of our imports. Complex and integrated supply chains across the UK and EU show the importance of making cross-border trade as free and frictionless as possible, and that is why it is important that we get our relationship with Europe right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

It was a long intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker.

With all due respect to my right hon. Friend—she and I served alongside each other in government—the British people have made the decision to leave the European Union. That was the crucial decision made in June 2016. The Government’s purpose is now to ensure that we have the best possible frictionless trade deal with the European Union, while still being able to take advantage of trade opportunities beyond the EU. As I have stated repeatedly during this debate, that is the Government’s objective.

[Stewart Hosie]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

No. I have already used up 25 minutes, and I am going to make a little more progress.

On services, we have the opportunity to establish a broader agreement than ever before. Of course we recognise that we cannot have the rights of single market membership, such as passporting for financial services, just as we understand that we cannot have all the benefits of single market membership without the obligations, but that does not mean that we should be shackled by existing precedent.

I know that some Members will ask how we can be sure that the EU will agree to our approach. The main point to bear in mind is that it is strongly in EU countries’ interests—economic and otherwise—to sign and agree such a deal. On the day we leave, the United Kingdom will overnight become the EU’s second largest trading partner—larger than China, Japan or India. The Commission estimates trade between the UK and the EU27 to be worth €812 billion. That is only 8% behind the EU27’s main trading partner, the United States, but it is 60% more than with China, which comes third.

Given the effort that the EU has put into deals with the likes of Mexico, Vietnam and Singapore—all of which, crucially, we support, but each of which is significantly less important to the EU than ours—it would be odd indeed for it to reject proposals from us. Furthermore, both the EU and the UK need to send a loud and clear message that we are strong believers in free trade. What message would be sent if we could not reach a free trade agreement?

However, even that underestimates our importance to the EU, because it is the type of trade that matters, not just the volume. Our strongest comparative advantages are in the business, professional and financial services that other businesses need to grow, and in the pharmaceutical goods that no one wants to exclude. For an advanced economy, good financial infrastructure is just as important as physical infrastructure, even if it is not as obvious. Restricting Europe’s access to the City’s financial infrastructure would be the act of a latter-day Beeching—although this time the main line would be closed, not the branch. Yes, the rest of the network could try and pick up the slack—the Frankfurts or Parises—but as I know, because I have worked in the sector, that network has less capacity and is less efficient, and EU businesses and manufacturers could not connect with the capital market that they need. The EU talks about a capital markets union, but how tenable is that without access to Europe’s main capital market?

Our relationship goes beyond mutual economic interest, however. Our membership of the EU is only one part of our relationship with Europe. We can still be neighbours when we leave: we are 30 km from the coast of France. We have cultural ties from before the EU was founded. We will still be in the same core organisations that the EU or its members are part of, from the European Court of Human Rights to the UN to NATO, and from the International Monetary Fund to the World Trade Organisation—the economic, security and humanitarian firmament that holds the international system together.

UK Economy

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The fiscal rules provide for action in the event of particular eventualities. I do not see a need to revise the rules at the moment. We move forward from here. The most important thing is for all of us to unite in moving forward and to make the best possible case for our renegotiation in the European Union.

We heard from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who is a predecessor of mine in this role. I totally agree with him about being loud and clear on the rights of existing EU nationals in this country. I can tell him that my own wife, Frau Hands, would very much agree with him as well.

[Stewart Hosie]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I am going to talk a little more about the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made a very powerful speech, referring to his very strong business background. Like me, he strongly supported the remain campaign. He made strong points about business and the importance of making sure we secure business and trade in our new arrangements.

The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said he is one of the youngest Members of this House and that he had not been alive when the country had been outside the European Union, which is food for thought. All the years he has been alive, the country has been in the European Union. He was right to say that if an economy goes wrong, it is very likely to be the poor who suffer most. That would also apply in London, which we both represent. He issued a warning to the skeleton Front Bench of his own party. It is not appropriate for me to reflect too much on that, but I am sure his points landed with those he wished to make them to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) made a strong contribution. He made an interesting observation at the beginning of it, when he said he hosted debates with high-quality speakers in his constituency and came away thinking that they did not seem to sway voters either way. He also said that the economy will bounce back if we act with resolve, which was an important point.

We then heard three speeches from Scottish National party Members—the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins)—and I have taken a couple of interventions from them. They made impassioned speeches and some pretty familiar points.

Public Finances: Scotland

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

As the arguments are complicated, it is so much easier simply to quote in full from the 15 January issue of the new Labour leadership’s favourite newspaper, the Morning Star:

“Labour MP Diane Abbott accused her party’s leaders yesterday of doing working people a ‘great disservice’ by backing Tory plans for permanent austerity.”

The hon. Gentleman keeps getting it wrong.

The key thing is that Scotland’s budget has been cut and will continue to be cut by this Government, which makes the achievements of the Scottish Government all the more remarkable. That makes it all the more important not simply that we get any old fiscal agreement, but that we get it right. We must ensure that the Smith commission principle of “no detriment” is adhered to and that we do not embed unfairness in the system, so that we are not subject to possible additional cuts of about £350 million a year. We need to avoid that outcome so that we can continue to do good things and build on the progress we have seen in health spending, which is up to £12.3 billion this year and will be £13 billion next year, and in education.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)]

May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the fiscal framework? I am interested in the amendment that he has tabled, because it seems to quote from the Smith commission—particularly paragraph 95(3) on no detriment, which states that

“the Scottish and UK Governments’ budgets should be no larger or smaller simply as a result of the initial transfer of tax and/or spending powers”.

The amendment carefully deletes some important parts of the Smith agreement. It states that

“Scotland would be no worse or better off simply as a result of the transfer of additional powers”.

Why has he deleted the word “initial”, which is very important in respect of the transfer of powers, and any reference to fairness to the UK taxpayer?

[Stewart Hosie]

For the sake of brevity. Let me be very clear that the negotiations that are under way are founded on a number of principles, including no detriment as a result of the devolution of further powers initially and no detriment as a result of the policy decisions of the UK Government or Scottish Government post-devolution. I would have thought that the Chief Secretary might have known that.

The whole point of getting this right is to avoid a potential cut of an additional £3.5 billion over a decade, so that the Scottish Government can continue their good work. We do not want those additional cuts to be made, because they would weaken our ability to internationalise the economy; hinder our support for businesses seeking to innovate and to do research and development; suck vital resources out of our plans to invest in education and infrastructure; and undermine all the work being done by the Scottish Government to deliver the fall in unemployment and the highest employment rates in the UK.

We understand the trajectory that Scotland’s public finances will take if the wrong block grant adjustment is chosen. As I say, it will perhaps mean the loss of £3.5 billion over a decade.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Debate between Greg Hands and Stewart Hosie

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The one thing that I would say about the CSR is that—no matter how many times the Chancellor said it during his statement, no matter how many times the Chief Secretary said it today and no matter how loudly the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said it a moment ago—it was not fair. The cuts—£81 billion a year by 2014-15—and the tax rises were not unavoidable.

Every decision taken by the coalition was a political one, but it was the failure to understand the consequences of the decisions that astonished me. Nowhere was that more so than in the defence elements of the CSR and the strategic defence and security review that went along with it. The decision to cancel the Nimrod programme puts a huge threat over RAF Kinloss and a huge question mark over RAF Lossiemouth,

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

What would happen under Scottish independence?

[Stewart Hosie]

The Parliamentary Private Secretary is chuntering away about Scottish independence. It is interesting, is it not? He normally wants to deprecate countries such as Ireland and Iceland, but they still sit above the UK in the world prosperity league. I shall give him a copy of The Scotsman to look at later, before he decides on another ill-judged sedentary intervention.

The bottom line is that those defence cuts threaten to add to the 10,000 military job losses under Labour and to the £5.6 billion military underspend in Scotland under Labour. Far more importantly, they would represent a 25% reduction in the entire military footprint in Scotland. If the cuts go ahead, they will represent a 25% hollowing out of the entire economy of Moray. When Conservative Ministers say that we are all in it together, it strikes me that that is not absolutely true and that it is not absolutely fair.

The CSR was not just about the Scottish block but about other UK spending decisions, yet somehow Scotland was portrayed as doing better than most UK Departments. That is nothing but spin. The House of Commons Library makes it clear that the Department of Health, the Department for International Development, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Defence, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, the Law Officers, the Northern Ireland Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Wales Office all did better. A little more substance and a little less spin would not go amiss.

That is important because the cuts represent £1.3 billion in cash terms next year and, above all expectations, there will be an £800 million cut in capital expenditure. That directly threatens 12,000 Scottish jobs. It is dreadfully disappointing—the cuts were announced on the same day as the Scottish quarter 2 GDP figures, which showed Scottish growth up at 1.3%, above the 1.2% for the UK, and confirmed the decision to have direct capital investment to protect jobs during the recession. That makes it all the more ludicrous that the Government would seek cuts of such magnitude before recovery is secure.