LGBT History Month

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Blake]

That is an absolute travesty—we should sort that out.

My hon. Friend has led the way through such tricky times and through such prejudice. She has been a champion and was the visibility that we needed through my childhood and that of many others. That was really courageous. I was seven in 1997. I came out at 14 and went back in the closet. “Gay” was the biggest insult that could be said in the playground, and “lesbo” was used as well. It was not a safe space to come out, so I went back into the closet until my early 20s, when I went to university and had the freedom to be who I truly am.

As a bi woman, it is interesting to see and hear even Members of this House trying to erase my identity on radio programmes such as “Woman’s Hour”, accusing people who happen to be bisexual, who fall in love with someone of the same gender and who happen to have that happiness recognised in a marriage, of cosplaying. I am not cosplaying. I am bisexual. I have loved men, I have loved women and I think that should be celebrated.

This is a debate about love. It is also a debate about hate—they are two sides of the same coin when it comes to the LGBTQ+ community. We will always have to resist, and it is that resistance that allows children, young people, older people and people going into care homes in their 70s to be out and proud. It is a constant battle and, as many have said, we must be vigilant.

We could all do with remembering that it is not just in other countries that people are losing their lives to prejudice, whether through lynching—unfortunately, that happens in some countries—or regressive laws. Society continues to peddle hate, to peddle fear and to tell people, “Hate yourself. Do not love yourself. You are not valid. You are not welcome in our society. You should change and hide yourself to be in our society.”

In 2021, Just Like Us, the LGBT+ young people’s charity, surveyed 2,934 pupils aged 11 to 18. More than 1,000—1,140—pupils identified as LGBT+. It found that 68% of LGBT+ young people had experienced suicidal thoughts, compared with 29% of young people who were not LGBT+. For lesbians, it was 74% and for transgender, 77%. They were most likely to experience suicidal thoughts and feelings. Nearly a third of LGBT young people have self-harmed, compared with only 9% of non-LGBT young people. Of the black LGBT young people surveyed, 89% had experienced suicidal thoughts and feelings, compared with 67% of the wider LGBT+ young people surveyed. Those statistics should absolutely shame us. I think that we can sometimes feel that we have reached equality and that we can be who we want to be, but those statistics paint another picture. That is why it is so important that we can talk about LGBT+ experiences in our schools and colleges.

When I did sex education at school, someone rolled out the VCR—that is showing my age. For kids watching at home, that was a tape that we put in a machine to play a video. We were separated from the boys in our class and put in a hall. Someone had started their period, so it was felt that we needed to know about what being a woman was and what being a woman meant. The video had this poor actress on an escalator. She got on, and the video said, “Being a woman: there are ups”—the woman went up the escalator—“and there are downs”, and she went down the escalator. That sticks with me and is the only thing that I remember about the video, because the rest of it was not relevant to me and my identity. It was very prescriptive. It was all about, “This is what happens to make a baby. There you go—job’s a good’un. Don’t do it before you’re ready”. Obviously there was no mention of condoms, because that would be ridiculous. That was of its time in the ’90s and the early ’00s. Section 28 was still in force and there were whisperings about which teachers might be gay, but they were not able to talk to us about it. They could not say, “Yes, I am, and I am proud of it.” That was really harmful.

People make assumptions about sexuality and what it means. People—even within our community—still see bisexual people as a threat to lesbian or gay areas. We are told, “Pick a side.” We are considered hyper-sexualised, not real and living in a fantasy land. That is absolutely not the truth for every member of every category in LGBTQ.

Some people may say, “Why does that acronym keep on getting bigger and longer? Why is it growing?” I am glad that it is growing, and I hope that in 50 years’ time when openly gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, queer and non-binary people and whoever else stand up here, they can look back, quote our speeches from today and say, “How horrifying that in 2023 politicians were standing up and saying this.” I hope they challenge us and that we continue to develop our understanding, acceptance and tolerance of people.

We need to recognise that, behind every LGBTQ+ person, there is a family. I am pleased that that family is now mostly made up of relatives: the people who have brought that person up, loved them and supported them. However, there is still a family around every LGBTQ+ person, and they might not be people they are related to, because there are still young people who have to flee from prejudice in their own homes. At 16, 17 or 18, they still have to leave home and leave the people who are meant to love and protect them to get to a place of safety and escape persecution and conversion therapy. As has been said, that is torture.

I wonder how the many of us in this House who are parents, aunts, uncles or grandparents of trans children must feel having to tolerate the discussion of how there are failings in the way we love our family members, how we are creating a threat to society and how we are allowing our medically ill loved ones to act in a way they should not. I just think it is absolutely abhorrent. Actually, I say to anyone who is supporting a trans young person—or anyone who is trans themselves, or non-binary, lesbian or gay—“You’re welcome, and please continue to stand in solidarity with the person you love, whether that is through a relationship or as a relative or a friend.”

Love is so, so important—it feeds each of us, and it is as important as water and food to the human condition—and the dehumanising nature of the debates we have seen over recent years has led me to be very concerned about where we are at the moment. We have heard far too often even our children being painted as predators, perverts and somehow a danger to others for just being who they are. However, this debate reminds us that LGBTQ+ people are everywhere, and have been throughout our history, as was eloquently put across by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn).

The whole idea of being in the closet hinges on the mismatch between someone’s internal emotional life and how they appear to other people, and the mismatch can often be dramatic. Being in the closet is something I have experienced, and it is horrible—not being able to be your true self is really difficult. For some bisexual people, being in a heterosexual relationship is enough for people to say they are not really bisexual—that can be both ways, with people saying either, “They’re actually a lesbian” or “They’re actually straight”—or even that they are appropriating gay culture. It is a denial of their internal emotional life: a “prove it” culture that colludes with the worst kind of homophobia to say, “If you’re not going to be gay in the way we say you should be gay, get back in the closet.” At its worst, it stops many from ever coming out at all. This does not only happen to people in the B category of LGBTQ+. The tension between the internal experience of what and who you are and the way the world expects you to be is rife across the whole spectrum of the Pride progress flag: “Be gay, but not like that; be lesbian, but not like that; be—especially—trans, but not like that”.

I know some people find the word “queer” difficult. It rakes up old or maybe even recent memories of being abused, just as “gay” and “lesbian” were used against us in the playground. I realise the pain and hurt that that word may make people feel, but there is something about it that flips the “but not like that” attitude. Queer culture exists, and we live messy lives, feel messy feelings and express ourselves in numerous and various ways—exciting ways—in great spaces that are the most welcoming I know. For those who use the word, queerness celebrates the way that people’s experiences of themselves do not ever quite fit with the labels and stereotypes. I celebrate that, because stereotypes can be toxic, as we have heard with the risk of suicide for younger LGBTQ+ people.

That is especially so when we look at public policy. Look at the way we treat LGBTQ+ asylum seekers. We changed the law about the evidence that they need to provide to claim asylum for being LGBTQ+ to the satisfaction of the people making judgments on their sexuality, but border officials may have no experience, lived experience, understanding or, for that matter, even training about what being LGBTQ+ is. People have often been hiding their entire life for fear of persecution just for who they are. It could even be that the way they express their sexuality—for example, the language they use to talk about it—is specific to their culture, and is not even recognised in the interview room. Their future wellbeing is held to ransom by the extent to which they conform to the received stereotypes of the interviewer.

The debate on trans rights is similar. Trans people are caught in the crossfire of being expected to conform to gender stereotypes by medical professionals and policy makers, but when they do, they are told that they are just replicating and internalising damaging gendered expectations and are therefore anti-feminist. Non- binary people do not even fit into that framework of understanding, and they are not even acknowledged as existing. Well, I see you: I see non-binary people and I recognise non-binary people. Their experience is absolutely valid and is beautiful. I am so proud that we are getting to a point where we can get outside these boxes.

This approach to the public discussion of LGBTQ+ people must end. Instead, we should respect and take seriously the actual lived experience of all LGBTQ+ people, not dismiss them as illegitimate, appropriationative —that is not a word; well, it is now—or suspicious. That means taking the Government’s consultation on the Gender Recognition Act 2004 seriously, and listening to the people who go through the process of getting a gender recognition certificate. Their testimony is harrowing. They talk about being dehumanised and humiliated for simply trying to get the world to acknowledge their existence and who they are. That process must be transformed, and it needs to be de-medicalised. We need to get rid of the medieval spousal permission rules, of course, but that cannot be all we do. We must end all aspects of the process that reinforce the outdated and old-fashioned expectations of how men and women should behave.

It also means brushing up on the law. The Equality Act 2010 is a beautiful piece of legislation that allows people to stand with pride, dignity, respect and honesty and makes me proud to be a Labour MP. It has been a huge leap forward in fighting discrimination and tackling bigotry, allowing young people now to come out proudly to communities and be accepted for who they are.

The term “gender recognition certificate” appears once in that Act, in a point about getting married. GRCs are not related to how the Act defines a transgender person or what it says about trans people’s access to single-sex services. Today in the UK, we do not need a GRC to access a public toilet, changing room or any other single-sex service, just as we do not need our birth certificate to access them either. It is a red herring to say that we cannot have GRA reform because of the Equality Act. The only way the two are related is that both are about making life better for people who are marginalised and discriminated against. They are a way of recognising as a state that people exist, rather than pushing them back into a Narnia-like wardrobe that will have endless people in it if we continue down this road of trying to deny their existence.

We are not going anywhere as the LGBT+ community. We are proud, we are here and we are staying. For years, we have been told to get back in the closet because we are troublesome, we are perverts, we are a risk to children and we are somehow troublesome to society, rather than just enjoying our lives and loving who we can in a legitimate way. While the history of LGBTQ+ people in the UK shows that we have come a long way, the fact that our existence continues to be challenged within those stereotypes is a shame.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Member’s speech. She touched on how our community has always been around and we are not going anywhere, but I would like to pay tribute to the people whose views have changed, even since my childhood in the ’80s—the people who go to Pride, celebrate it and recognise us as part of the community. It is important when we debate matters in this House that we do not leave children, or people who are starting to work out what they are in life, thinking that the world is really different from how it is. The vast majority of heterosexual people, frankly, could not give two hoots and would quite enjoy a nice party. I want to add that balance to her serious point. Does she agree?

[Olivia Blake]

Absolutely. As I have said throughout my speech, I do not think prejudice is defined by one part of this. We are learning collectively, and I am happy for people to make mistakes, get language wrong and learn, but I want people to be on the right side of history on this. We know that people in this House and the other place have said horrific things about gay people in the past, but they have been on that journey, and I welcome that allyship. I married a straight man—a heterosexual man—and I welcome that allyship, but we need to recognise where we are at the moment and the dangers we are facing as a broader community.

We need to take pride in ourselves. We need to be at those Pride marches. We need to be the ones who are educating. We need to be the pioneers. We need to be the ones who are saying, “Love is love. Hate is hate”, and calling that out and spotting that difference. Through the determination of our continued struggle, we continue to tackle stereotypes that are just as harmful for heterosexual men as they are for gay men. A lot of people like to talk about toxic masculinity, but there are lots of different stereotypes that are harmful.

Everyone is an individual. Everyone’s individual love and individual identity is valid, wonderful and beautiful to me, and is why humanity is so exciting. It is so great to represent communities with all of that in. It is the fantasticness of being human. We need to stop dehumanising people and recognise that humanity is fantastic, and that has to include every part of the LGBTQ+ community.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful for that intervention. Yes, it seems that the Prime Minister ploughed on regardless, despite the clear advice that she was given.

The concerns that we are discussing must be taken seriously. We need to hear so much more from the Government about how they will support our farmers—that includes smallholding farmers, as were mentioned in an intervention by the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins)—about the robustness of animal welfare protections and about how we can prevent our farmers from being sold short for doing the right thing and upholding high standards. Ministers also need to be clear about what support farmers can rely on in the next 15 years so that they can navigate the transitional period. Those matters will be pressed by the Opposition in Committee.

Given the Government’s poor record in standing up for UK interests in negotiations, perhaps it is no surprise that Australia’s former negotiator at the World Trade Organisation said:

“I don’t think we have ever done as well as this”.

Is it any wonder that the National Farmers Union said, of the Australia agreement,

“there is little in this deal to benefit British farmers”?

As we consider the impact on our agricultural sector, why are the Government promising a monitoring report about two years after the agreement comes into effect and every two years thereafter? Why not every year? They could do that, particularly given the level of concern in our rural communities.

I turn to climate change. I realise that the Conservative party has a long-standing reliance on conservative allies from Australia, not least with the appointment of Tony Abbott to the trade board, but surely it has not signed up to some of the more extreme views that he and his colleagues hold on climate change, including that it is “probably doing good”. The current COP26 President, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma)—

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Hear, hear.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On 1 December 2021, in this House, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Australian deal would reaffirm

“both parties’ commitments to upholding our obligations under the Paris agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5°.”—[Official Report, 1 December 2021; Vol. 704, c. 903.]

Frankly, I would have cheered as the hon. Lady did if, a few weeks later, the deal had actually contained what the right hon. Gentleman said it would. However, the explicit commitment to limit global warming to 1.5° was not in the deal, despite what had been said. What went wrong in the final couple of weeks of the negotiation? Did Ministers simply give in for the sake of getting a completed deal? It is a lesson that tariff-free access to our UK market should not be given away easily. Looking at the concessions made by the Government in those final weeks, are people not right to worry that the Government are more interested in the press release announcing the completed deal than they are in standing up for UK jobs and livelihoods? It surely cannot be right that, as across the world we debate the devastating impact of climate change, we are not capturing that fully in deals like this. Not only is it dangerous to the planet, but it fails to recognise the huge business and export potential that climate change technology, innovation and services can create. It is not only environmentally unsound, but it also makes bad business sense. I implore Ministers to speak again with the new Administration in Australia to see what more can be done to take joint action on climate change, and to put it at the front and centre of the very well established and historic relationship between the two countries. I am sure that the recent change in Government in Australia will be beneficial in enabling that to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the position of small businesses. Support for small businesses, particularly exporters, is something on which the Government really have to do far better.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will take one more intervention and then I will have to make some progress.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I am very grateful. I speak because I am genuinely passionate. I do not know how many Members have actually exported to Australia as a small businessperson, but I have. The trade agreement makes it easier and better. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I sincerely hope it does; absolutely. I am glad I took the intervention, because of the hon. Lady’s experience of exporting. I am sure she agrees with me that businesses have different amounts of resources to spend on supporting their exports and getting information about markets around the world, and that the Government should stand by all those exporters and make that process as easy as possible. The trade deal is, of course, a step forward, but we also must support our businesses in taking advantage of the opportunities she is speaking about.

Returning to climate change, we really must use future trade deals to drive forward this agenda and recognise the mutual benefit of tackling the biggest challenge of our generation.

On the third issue, labour standards and workers’ rights, Ministers need to go further, especially given some of the rhetoric briefed to the newspapers about bonfires of workers’ rights, and ensure that the Bill will not undermine workers’ rights, particularly in relation to Australia. The TUC said, in relation to the Australia deal, that the agreement

“does not contain commitments to ILO core conventions and an obligation for both parties to ratify and respect those agreements”,

and that it provides

“a much weaker commitment to just the ILO declaration”.

That is a profound error. We should not be setting off on the road of establishing new trade agreements across the globe that sell short our workers here, or indeed elsewhere. A race to the bottom benefits no one. Put simply, it is self-defeating to think that Britain would prosper via deals in which labour standards are a trade-off. We should be promoting the highest standards here and around the world, in the interests of our workers here and as a force for good around the world. It is what a Labour Government would do, working with all trading partners, including Australia and New Zealand, to drive up protection for workers and to have a trade policy that truly delivers for working people.

On the devolved Administrations, an issue raised on a number of occasions, the Government have spoken about trade benefiting all parts of the United Kingdom. Central to that, however, is taking into account the strengths of different nations and regions, and listening to their democratically elected representatives. That needs to be done in overall trade policy, in the negotiating mandate and negotiation process, and in ratification. That could be—I say this to the Secretary of State—formalised in a concordat or agreement on how the Government interact with the devolved Administrations. I urge the Secretary of State to look at that. We are also calling for the UK Government to undertake nation-specific impact assessments on trade deals. That would ensure a clear understanding of the implications and opportunities for the whole country, and also ensure that the deals can best align with the economic strategies of the devolved Administrations.

There is also—if I may just mention it for a moment—an issue around geographical indicators. As the International Trade Committee put it, the

“Government has failed to secure any substantive concessions on the protection of UK Geographical Indications in Australia.”

We should be backing our fantastic national producers, from Stilton cheese to Anglesey sea salt and Scotch whisky, and not failing to achieve concessions in this way.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

No.

Let us move on to New Zealand and Canada. Having seen what has happened with Australia, they will surely demand the same deal for their farmers as the price of support for UK accession to CPTPP. Handshake by handshake, the future of British farming will be sold.

The threat to our country’s interests lies not just in what the Secretary of State is willing to do, or in the interests that she is willing to sacrifice as the price of admission to the agreement, but in what will happen once we are in the door. That brings me to my next quote, which is typically pithy and to the point, from New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. She said that investor-state dispute settlement “is a dog”.

When she inherited the CPTPP negotiations at the last minute in 2017, the new New Zealand Prime Minister was willing to jeopardise the entire process to demand that New Zealand be exempted from the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement. She did not want the threat of lawsuits in the name of wealthy foreign corporations restricting her ability to introduce policies for the protection of consumers, workers, the environment and public health policy. For the same reason, we have had no IDS—or, rather, ISDS—[Interruption.] Well, it was a Freudian slip. That is why we have had no ISDS provisions in any of the post-Brexit trade agreements signed by the Government with 67 non-EU countries, with the European Union and with Australia. So when it comes to CPTPP, why are the Government not simply following New Zealand’s lead and demanding an exemption from the provisions on ISDS? Again, it goes back to the big decision taken by the Secretary of State that what matters most is not minimising the risks of this deal, maximising the opportunities and making it right for Britain, but simply getting it done as quickly as possible, even if that means selling out our farming industry and exposing our country to the risks of ISDS.

It is apparently okay, though, because in respect of all of those risks the Government simply assert that we have nothing to fear. We have the same assurances with respect to food safety, online harms, patent laws, procurement rules, data protection, medicine prices, intellectual property and our NHS, and that is all without mentioning the 22 suspended provisions in the agreement, which the strategy document simply ignores. We are simply told that none of those provisions will be a problem for the UK and that we should trust the Government—we should trust the Government to protect our interests, even though they cannot tell us how. Instead of exemptions, we are reliant on assertions. Instead of amendments they offer us assurances. I respectfully say to the Secretary of State that we have had enough of the Government’s assurances when it comes to negotiations on trade, the Northern Ireland protocol, non-tariff barriers with Europe, and the betrayal of our fishing industry, our farming industry and our steel industry. We have had enough of being told by them just to take their word for it and everything will turn out fine and all our interests will be protected.

The reason this matters so much is because it is this Secretary of State who stands personally accused of saying one thing to the British farming industry and another for the sake of CPTPP. If she is willing to break her promises to the farming community that she represents, why would not she do the same to the health service on which we all depend? That is why, while the Labour party remains committed to the possibilities that joining the CPTPP offers, we will continue to demand a fresh approach to the accession process, starting with proper protection for our farmers and food standards, total exemption from the provisions on ISDS, and a complete carve-out for our national health service, patient data included.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

rose—

[Emily Thornberry]

I am about to finish so I will not give way again.

I was talking about the importance of negotiating a deal where there would be specific demands and where there would be carve-outs. All those things may take more time than the Secretary of State would like and it may be a harder negotiation than those she is used to, but none of that should matter when what we are trying to do is get what is best for Britain.

Trade Bill

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To finish no later than 5.31 pm, I call Katherine Fletcher.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Let me cut right to the chase: free trade is too important to end up with consequences being felt elsewhere. The Lords amendments are noble. I agree: China risks perpetrating atrocities of oppression, torture, sterilisation and the incarceration of people just because they have the cheek to want to be a different type of person or think something different. Its ideology and its ideas are failing, and the people will rise up.

However, I fear that the Lords amendments would have unintended consequences. Genocide in other countries is hard to prove in our courts. It is hard to get witnesses to come to speak. We have no power to compel hostile Governments to appear before our courts. What happens if a judicial procedure or a court finds that there is not enough evidence to prove genocide? Cue the lies, manipulation and crowing that would come from a dictatorship. “Fake news” is what they would describe from their machine. “The British courts have cleared us,” would scream the headlines. Who have we helped then? Nobody. Parliament can investigate and vote. We can and should decide, and I will be supporting the Government amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and the Secretary of State.

Trade Bill

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

You are still smiling, Angus. We now go down to a four-minute limit.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) [V]]

Let me speak to the Lords amendment tabled in the name of Lord Alton. I join colleagues in utterly condemning the human rights abuses in Xinjiang with the Uyghurs. They are awful; it shames the perpetrators and to put it bluntly they should stop, immediately. However, like many colleagues, I am concerned about subcontracting Government policy to a bunch of unelected judges and lawyers. We cannot, as a Government, put ourselves in the position, however noble the intent, of allowing an agreement by a democratically elected Government with another Government to be struck down or put in jeopardy by a court, no matter how morally correct the case may be and how much I would personally agree with it. I say this because trade is just too important to our people—to the businesses and communities of South Ribble, Lancashire and beyond.

We heard recently in this House about global Britain—quite right. This Government are creating opportunities. We had 60-odd trade deals signed last year and there are more under negotiation. These are brilliant times. Instead of involving the courts, we should put all our focus on encouraging and supporting small businesses and breaking down barriers to trade. We should do everything we can as a Government and strain every sinew to encourage small businesses to trade globally, exporting their goods and services.

Practically, I am calling on the Government to use and build on their brilliant work in this area to further the take-up of this challenge in two main areas. The first is practical help. If somebody is thinking about exporting and they put “How to export” into Google, they get a list of nonsense. We need simple, clear “how to” guidelines to get people started and to build their confidence so that they believe that this is something for them. We need to invest in start-up units at affordable rates to make sure that somebody with a great idea or somebody wanting to expand is not getting caught with huge capital costs up front. Let us make exporting the everyday thing it so easily is, as I know from my own experience.

Secondly, we need to address the emotions of pride and ambition, and community pride. If a businessperson starts exporting and they create a job for somebody in their community because of it, the whole pub should buy them a drink, because what they are doing is on a par with the amazing community spirit that we have seen during these covid times of volunteers. They are doing a community service and they should be celebrated. Let us have a national award scheme for businesses that start exporting, and let us give them a plaque to put up on their business’s wall, “Here resides a great British exporter”.

I will oppose the Lords amendments today because I do not think this is the right place, but I welcome this whole Trade Bill. Ultimately, I believe that global Britain wins arguments against repressive regimes by proudly sharing how our way is better for all of our peoples.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We were told that we were going to take back control and we were going to ensure our sovereignty, and that to do that, we must be allowed a say on the rules and standards by which we are governed—to be rule makers, not rule takers. These are phrases we have heard many times over the last few years, and these amendments coming back from the Lords today will do precisely that—give our sovereign Parliament a say over any trade agreements made by the Executive.

When we were members of the European Union, our MEPs had, on any trade deal negotiated, a guaranteed debate and vote in the European Parliament, and if a trade deal was not deemed acceptable, it could be rejected. Why would we now accept a lesser say in this Parliament? Our constituents expect representation. It is not just in Europe, but in Japan and the United States that they have higher standards.

I welcome President Biden’s inauguration tomorrow, and he will be working with a new Senate and a new House. The new Congress will enjoy scrutiny over its trade deals, but without these amendments, we will not. Before negotiations, Congress can see and vote on general objectives, which are then published for public consultation. Once negotiations are complete, the agreement must then be ratified by Congress. Why would we hold ourselves to a lesser standard than that?

I know these principles have wide cross-Bench and public support, including from the National Farmers Union, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Greener UK, the CBI, Which? and so on—we should pass Lords amendment 1. However, that is not the only amendment in front of us today. Half a million people have signed a petition calling on the Government to protect our food standards in law. Lords amendment 6 provides that

“a Minister of the Crown ensures as far as possible that a future trade agreement is consistent with United Kingdom levels of statutory protection”

for food standards, as well as animal welfare, employment and welfare standards, and environmental protections.

If this year has taught us anything, it is that we need to ensure that we do not have a race to the bottom. We must keep our qualities and standards, and we cannot leave the quality of our food on the table in any trade negotiation. In addition, we need a robust TAC that defends public health, protects the environment and ensures the future of our farming communities. As president of COP26, one of the weapons in our armoury for a binding agreement is trade deals, and we would not want to have trade pulling one way and diplomacy another.

Finally, I come to Lords amendments 2 and 3, and the many excellent speeches from around this Chamber already on human rights and democracy. We have a responsibility to people across the globe who are suffering tyranny and genocide. While others have mentioned the impact that these amendments will have in relation to the Uyghurs, these amendments would also be powerful in challenging transactions in Hong Kong as well as the human rights abuses by several other countries, such as Egypt.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) made an excellent speech about Cameroon, and the suppression of the Anglophone people there. We have signed a trade agreement with Cameroon that we have not yet seen, which is quite unbelievable. We have future trade negotiations with Indonesia. The Department for International Trade met the Indonesians in November. Future trade discussions must take into account the horrific human rights abuses in West Papua, which many universities have classified as a genocide. We need only look at the current beating and intimidation of voters and Opposition politicians in Uganda to know that situations emerging around the world are important to consider in future trade negotiations.

Trade Bill

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

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

Before I conclude, I wish to add to the comments made by the hon. Gentleman about the need to reform the investor state dispute mechanism. That is particularly important as we deal with the global socioeconomic consequences of covid-19. I welcome moves recently by the European Commission, as well as by some of the candidates to be director general of the World Trade Organisation, seeking to explore new multilateral investment courts to replaces the investor-state dispute settlement system. I hope the Government will consider engaging constructively in those discussions. I hope the House will support new clause 4 and the amendments he tabled, as I believe they will improve future UK trade policy and the integrity and our democratic engagement in those negotiations.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) that it is a pleasure to follow such a thoughtful contribution—indeed, let me say diolch yn fawr to all three Welsh MPs who have just spoken.

I rise to add my voice to calls for more trade and more opportunities for business in global Britain, especially those close to my heart in South Ribble and wider Lancashire. This Bill allows for more than 40 existing trade agreements with other countries to be kept in place, for us to access a £1.3 trillion global procurement market and for us to protect vital industries from product dumping by overseas actors. Finally, we clear up the rules on sharing data in customs environments, all of which are vital to the health of our domestic and export businesses. This useful and practical Bill tidies up the details on laws currently with the EU and adding them to the UK’s statute book.

I also rise to put to rest the concerns I have heard from many of the good people of South Ribble who have been worried by some of the noise and misunderstandings around the Bill.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members wish simply to sow doubt among the public about the NHS? We have had 10 years in which to privatise it, but we have not done so. The last time it was privatised was in 2006, with Tony Blair’s independent sector treatment centres. Does she agree that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy coming from those on the Opposition Benches?

[Katherine Fletcher]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct on that. Having been part of the Bill Committee in the past weeks, I have had the opportunity to hear at length the arguments made on this Bill and on today’s amendments. I have listened hard to the details and drawn my own judgments. The advocacy for new amendments is strong and their proponents on the Opposition Benches articulate them well. They express fears that, at first glance, seem reasonable, but they are fears and not realities. I worry that Opposition Members are seeking to conflate what is actually in the Bill with fears about what could be in the Bill and wider conversations about trade. I know I am relatively new to this House, but that does not make sense to me. So what are the actualités of this piece? There is much noise about Parliament voting on future trade deals—we can do that, more so than is the case in other countries such as Australia and New Zealand. The CRAG process allows us to vote on trade deals and if we change our own law on trade, we will vote on that in this place too.

In reference to new clause 4, I must draw on my business background. As anyone who has negotiated any type of deal before knows, if you are at a table and have to say, “I agree but I have to get 650 other people to agree”, it rather ties your hands in the negotiation. Let us trust our elected Government to act in the best interests of global Britain, and as hon. Friends have mentioned, trust those on these Back Benches to hold them to account. Should it be needed, there is still a backstop. If we, as a Parliament, need to block a trade deal after negotiation, we can. If it changes our laws, it will need a vote in this place, and FTAs cannot, by their nature, unilaterally change UK law. This is similar to Canada’s system, and it is forging on with trade deals and doing all right.

I have had much correspondence from the people of South Ribble raising concerns about our farmers and their wonderful, quality produce. People say, “You need to reassure constituents. There is concern that if a clear and explicit Government commitment to uphold food standards is not included in the Trade Bill, existing food law, including retained law, could easily be changed.” If I were in their shoes listening to that, I would be worried too. Let me put their fears to rest. We will not remove the UK’s current food standards. For example, hormones and chlorine in food are banned now and will remain banned—full stop. The current standards are in EU law and will be rolled over when we leave the transition period. We have promised to keep import standards in place, and we will. For those concerned about having a say, should they ever be changed, that will be voted on here in the UK Parliament.

If we put food standards rules into this Bill and ask those overseas to adhere to them, then we are asking those abroad to abide by our law. That is something we would not and do not accept from other countries, and our friends abroad will almost certainly say, “No thanks. That will put a restriction on trade that will hurt us—let’s not.” To put it another way, putting food standards regulation into a Bill rolling EU law into UK law is a bit like putting a frock on a frog: it will look more than a bit out of place down at the negotiating pond, and people will be disappointed when they kiss it and it does not turn out to be a protectionist princess. There is a right place to protect the UK’s food standards when products are imported, and we will, but it is not this Bill.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), as I recall I did when she made her maiden speech. I rise to speak in support of new clause 4 tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who I know is scheduled to speak immediately after me and will doubtless give a detailed account of the reasons for it. In anticipation of that, I wish to set out why the Liberal Democrats support it.

From 1 January 2021, the UK will be setting out on its own for the first time in nearly 40 years in developing its own independent trade policy and negotiating its own trade agreements. The implications of this step on everyday life in the UK are huge, and possibly not yet fully appreciated. Trade negotiations are complex and delicate. Securing access to international markets for one sector may mean conceding international access to our domestic markets for another. Securing preferential treatment on tariffs for some of our goods may mean relaxing import controls on something else.

We have a complex economy currently disrupted by the need to beat the coronavirus, and on the verge of major change as we transition away from carbon-emitting activity. Technological change offers both threat and opportunity. We must also consider that our economy is imperfect in its distribution of wealth and opportunity, and look for ways to address this challenge. Increasingly, the UK is being called on to stand up for the defence of fundamental human rights and liberal democracy and use the powers at its disposal to effect change internationally. Our trade policy and agreements touch on all those urgent challenges. How can we best leverage our economic advantages to deliver current and future prosperity for UK citizens and influence peaceful progress abroad?

To determine that those decisions are best made behind closed doors without consultation or discussion is an assault on our very idea of what Parliament is for. We need to balance all the competing pressures from different economic sectors and geographical regions, fully considering the impact on different groups of workers, and determine whether we prioritise climate commitments over economic growth. How can that be done effectively without recourse to Parliament? The British people deserve to have their interests properly represented when these questions are being asked and for the answers given by Ministers to be put on the public record and judged accordingly.

I also speak in support of new clause 9 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and supported by the Liberal Democrats because we recognise the urgency of taking action against the very real threat of climate change. It is essential that we enshrine that urgency in our trade legislation, so that negotiating partners know, before the first papers are exchanged, that they must comply with our environmental goals. Our economy is transitioning away from carbon emissions, in accordance with the democratic mandate to achieve net zero carbon by 2050, and that progress must be underpinned in every trade agreement we negotiate. Our commitment to net zero cannot be traded away in pursuit of other goals.

The Liberal Democrats have also tabled amendments that relate to dispute resolution and human rights. Dispute resolution is fundamental to ensuring that democratic decision-making that relates to the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, or regulation of food standards, cannot be undermined by law suits from foreign corporations. At this stage, the UK Government should rule out any use of investor-state dispute settlement procedures from UK trade deals, to safeguard our ability to determine our own regulatory environment, without the threat of sanction from foreign investors. That is fundamental to ensuring that our NHS remains free at the point of use for all UK citizens, and that we set our own standards on animal welfare and food quality.

Earlier I referred to the UK’s powers to effect change internationally, and to how we can use our trade agreements as leverage. We have been forcefully reminded of our need to use those powers to influence foreign partners to respect human rights, thanks to recent events in Hong Kong and China. It would send a powerful message to the Chinese regime, and to others around the world who hope to trade with us, if we enshrined in law our commitment to upholding human rights as a non-negotiable element of our trade deals. That message will be compelling only if we lead by example, and that example starts with parliamentary oversight of negotiating mandates and trade deals. I implore colleagues to support new clause 4 this evening.

Trade Bill (Eighth sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

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

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s clarification that while people have concerns about food standards the things he mentioned are not allowed in the UK at the moment. I noticed he said that sotto voce so I wanted to emphasise it for the record. They are not allowed, we are not going to have them, and it is not relevant to a continuity roll-over of a free trade agreement.

[Bill Esterson]

As we have debated many times, the Bill, with its long title, is a lot more than that.

Trade Bill (Fourth sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

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

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North gave a great example, sadly, of bias by the Government against northern firms.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Nonsense!

[Gareth Thomas]

One of the more encouraging stories of northern procurement in recent times comes from Preston, where the council has sought to use its limited procurement tools to try to counteract the gradual moving away of businesses and good jobs out of Preston to other areas. If our amendment were to be passed, and the carve-out for small and medium-sized enterprises in the US, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, were adopted by the UK, would that not provide additional tools to councils such as Preston to counteract that northern bias in Government procurement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will send him the Co-op party membership application form as a result of this exchange. It is very nice to find a new convert from the Conservative Benches to the need for a more diverse economy. I had thought that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) was the only such enlightened Member of Parliament on those Benches, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs is first up of the new intake to catch my eye.

[Katherine Fletcher]

The hon. Gentleman may have to get a larger book to tally up those of us who are interested in the Co-operative movement. I have worked with both the credit union movement and the co-operative movement, and my grandad was a Co-op milkman. The hon. Gentleman is right that the movement has a huge role to play in productivity. Co-ops should look forward to the opportunities to export to a greater range of markets within a free trade deal, such as the framework here.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am in danger of leaving tonight in a good mood, Sir Graham. I am delighted that a second convert to co-ops has emerged. I will have to send another membership form for the Co-op party to the hon. Lady.

Trade Bill (First sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We may have to ask you to speak up please, because we are struggling to hear.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I don’t think they will be able to hear you on mic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

How would you want the Bill to be improved?

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q Mr Freeland, I am going to relay the question, because we are in a big, echoey room. Gareth Thomas MP just asked you how you would like to see the Bill improved.

Roy Freeland: I am broadly very supportive of the Bill because, as other speakers have said, we need to be pragmatic about the situation we are in. However, there are some issues. I am speaking as a representative of a high-technology SME supplying the rail industry that has particular problems or requirements for GPA, simply because many of our customers are effectively part of a Government procurement in their countries, so it is uniquely important to transportation businesses. I also have some comments on SME issues.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q The floor is yours, sir.

[The Chair]

Please do expand.

Roy Freeland: The improvement that I have to suggest is the question of reciprocity, which has already been mentioned. Article 85 of the EU directive in 2014 talked about ensuring comparable and effective access for undertakings to the markets of those third countries. I would like to see the Trade Bill include a brief provision so that countries that are applying restrictions to UK exports can have similar restrictions applied when they are trying to export to the UK. This is a non-confrontational way to deal with the issue. It has major advantages, in that it would be fair, and would be seen to be fair, being based on reciprocity rather than unilateral protectionism. It would help to demonstrate the UK’s leadership on free trade and refusal to accept unfair restrictions. I think it would also provide a negotiating tool for us. Exporters to the UK would put pressure on their own Government—[Inaudible.] This whole process would provide a backstop and would provide flexibility to deal with Government procurement issues without—[Inaudible.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

First, we are participating in the efforts to tackle coronavirus through the cross-Government working group. The Prime Minister chaired a Cobra meeting on Monday to make sure that we are dealing with those supply chain issues. Furthermore, I expect the Trade Remedies Authority to play a strong role in making sure that we do not see the dumping of products on the UK market.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment she has made of the potential economic benefits to small and medium-sized enterprises of a trade agreement with the US.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

Some 30,000 small and medium-sized enterprises already trade with the United States. In the new free trade agreement, we will be asking for a dedicated SME chapter that removes customs red tape, does more stuff online and makes it much easier for our fantastic small businesses to trade with the United States.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Many businesses in South Ribble stand to benefit hugely from a free trade agreement with the USA—not least Leyland Exports, a commercial vehicle and silicone hose specialist. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must push hard to secure a free trade deal that benefits businesses of all sizes in all regions, and supports supply chains?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right. I understand that Leyland Exports can face up to 25% tariffs on the export of goods vehicles to the United States, and 5% tariffs on its exports to Australia. In the free trade agreements we are looking for from the United States and Australia, one of our key asks will be to get rid of those tariffs, and to make it much easier for the car industry—by reducing testing and red tape—to ensure that we can get our fantastic exports into those markets.