Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Matt Western Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for Wycombe (Mr Baker) about the serial underestimate of the benefits of free trade. We Government Members are very clear about the benefits for consumers and producers and the competitiveness of this nation alike.

I will try to address as many of the other points as time allows. As is so often the case, I am afraid that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) raised the prospect of the NHS being at risk. Let me be very clear: this and our other free trade agreements do not, and will not, cover healthcare services in the UK—neither will they threaten the standard of care nor the Government’s ability to decide how we and this Parliament organise our healthcare services in this country in the best way for patients. The NHS is not at risk from free trade agreements and I agree with the right hon. Member for Warley that the House should not conflate the two.

A number of serious contributions were made about agriculture. We understand fully hon. Members’ concerns—we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) and, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. British farming is vital to our trade policy. Any deal that we sign needs to work for UK consumers, farmers and food producers. I have many of those in my constituency and will always look out for them.

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

Like the Minister, I have farmers in my constituency; I met them last week and we discussed the trade deal and its likely impacts. Is he concerned, as they are, about the sort of economic impact that it will have? Will he confirm that the Government have undertaken a full economic impact assessment of the deal?

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

There was a lot in that further supplementary. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that most of the trade deals that he and his party have not supported are actually the EU’s trade deals? His party’s policy is to re-join the EU. The SNP was against the EU-Japan deal in the European Parliament and abstained here; it was against the Canada deal; it was against the Singapore deal; it abstained on South Africa, and it abstained on Korea.

When it comes to fisheries, I refer the hon. Gentleman back to what the ONS said, not this past Friday but in relation to February’s data—he is so out of date. This is what the ONS said in April:

“The disruptions to food exports in January 2021 appear to have largely been overcome and may have only had short-term impacts on trade.”

That is what it said in April, yet he is still not up to date. On hauliers, we are discussing all the time with the Department for Transport what extra action needs to be taken.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks for compensation. Perhaps he can come to this House and account for the £180 million given by this Government to the Scottish Government for dealing with the consequences and the impact of Brexit at the end of the transition period, because we are not at all sure where that money has gone.

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

The reality on the ground is quite different from what the Minister may be claiming. I recently met many manufacturers and businesses in Warwick and Leamington, such as Bravissimo, Vitsoe and young British designers, and they are desperate. Their concerns are underlined by surveys by the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and Make UK showing the serious and lasting damage being done to UK firms trying to maintain their trade with Europe in the face of the inadequacies of the Government’s Brexit deal. Can I ask the Minister of State whether he thinks Lord Frost has the bandwidth to fix those problems, on top of the Northern Ireland protocol, or do we need someone else in Government to get a grip?

Free Trade Agreements: Cameroon and Ghana

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Lady. No, it does not, and at every stage the Government have refused any kind of scrutiny, either of their EU deals or, as she says, the roll-over deals that have followed.

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

I thank the hon. Lady for holding this really important debate, evidenced by the number of people who are here tonight. She will be aware that the shadow Trade Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), asked the Government to hold a debate and crucially a vote on the UK’s new deal with Cameroon, but is she aware that the Secretary of State rejected that request on the basis that there had been a 14-minute debate on the previous EU deal in the other place back in November 2010 and therefore no further debate would be required? Does she think that sounds like a Government who care about parliamentary scrutiny, let alone human rights?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Member admirably makes my point for me: at every stage this Government have refused scrutiny. We cannot and do not have any oversight at all of what the British Government are doing in our name and how they are supporting our African partners.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

What assessment she has made of the potential effect on UK trade policy of the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election.

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

What assessment she has made of the potential effect on UK trade policy of the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election.

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

We have made good progress on our US deal, agreeing the majority of text and the majority of chapters. We are working with both sides of the House in the US for a deal that benefits both our two nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

In the new UK global tariff we have reduced the tariffs on 100 green goods, and we want to encourage more other countries to support that. Of course we are committed to working with the US, and next year we will have the presidency of the G7. That is a really good opportunity for us to pursue that agenda of tackling climate change, alongside our COP26 commitments, and of course we will be looking at putting these in all our trade deals.

[Matt Western]

Although we would all want a successful outcome to any trade negotiations with the US, will the Secretary of State confirm that, according to the Government’s own best-case scenario, any US deal with the UK will account for growth of only 0.16% over 15 years? Will she confirm what this will translate into if we do not get a deal with the EU? What loss in growth will we sustain?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Our assessment suggests that a £15 billion increase in trade will result from a US deal and also that we will see tariffs of half a billion pounds taken off fantastic British companies, be they in ceramics or the car industry, which will help to boost that growth. But the EU deal and the US deal are not in contradiction to each other; we should be aiming to do both. The problem is that the Labour party seems willing to agree any deal with the EU and willing to agree no deal with the US. What Conservative Members want is a good deal for Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

We have been absolutely clear that in terms of the US deal the NHS is not on the table, and that includes drug pricing and other aspects of delivery of healthcare services. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the European Union is also a member of the government procurement agreement, and therefore we look forward, on a bilateral basis between the UK and the EU, to UK companies being able to take advantage of these procurement opportunities in European markets and also UK procurers being able to give their contracts to European companies.

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

What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the potential merits of using carbon tariffs to reduce emissions associated with international trade.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

Britain has reduced emissions faster than any other G7 nation since 1990; and we were the first major economy to legislate for net zero emissions, too. This people’s Government will make sure the British people benefit from being at the forefront of clean wind energy. We will spend £160 million on port and factory upgrades to create jobs, build turbines and increase our offshore wind capacity, which is already the biggest in the world. The hon. Gentleman can be sure that we will continue to push for ambitious international action to protect the environment, including through our trade agenda. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that the environment is one of her top three priorities for British leadership at the World Trade Organisation.

[Matt Western]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his position on the Front Bench, having worked with him on the International Trade Committee for a couple of years. Contrary to the points being made by certain Ministers, I would say that many of us on this side of the House speak up for businesses and are very proud of the contribution that our world-beating businesses and industries make. Carbon border taxes are an important measure not just for the environment, but for preventing carbon-intensive industries from relocating to countries with lower emissions standards and therefore a lower cost base. Can the Minister assure us that there is nothing in the deal that the Government have signed with Japan or nothing in the deals being struck with the US in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is far too long in both cases—we will not get anyone else in at this rate. Minister, try and do the best you can.

Draft Prevention of Trade Diversion (Key Medicines) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 General Committees

[Graham Stuart]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West on his speech, which did two things. First, it thoroughly examined the SI and, secondly, having built that base and confidence with you, Mr Hollobone, it included issues that would adorn any general debate in the House of Commons on health, perhaps straying somewhat beyond the highly technical and specific elements of the regulations. I will respond only to the bits that have some relevance to the SI that we are discussing, notwithstanding the fact that it was an excellent speech and touched on important matters that should, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, be debated elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman raised the lack of specialists. We recognise that; he is entirely right. That is why we will work closely with the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to assess any medicinal information provided by manufacturers or exporters, to ensure that all considerations are given appropriate weight. He will be aware that the Government not only are the first ever—if we are stretching beyond the immediate remit—to meet the 0.7% target for aid spending, but are generously and fully funding the WHO. We will consult as appropriate across the piece.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned roll-over agreements in Africa. I am not aware that there are any practical implications, but if there are any, on further consideration following this debate, I will write to not only the hon. Gentleman but all Committee members so that they are aware of them.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Secretary of State can make regulations under the SI. On the issue of labelling, the only thing that we are removing is the EU logo. Manufacturers will be able, as now, to work with the appropriate authorities to ensure that their product is suitably differentiated. They have every interest in doing so. Whatever mark they may find best to do so will continue to be supported. As I say, we will have the power to make regulations if further action were to be appropriate, but at the moment we do not think it will be.

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

How frequently will labelling be reviewed by the Secretary of State, and on what products?

[Graham Stuart]

I think I can suggest that it will never be reviewed, unless or until someone raises it as an issue, which is most likely to be the companies whose interests we are seeking to protect. We will keep an open mind. We have the power to do these things, and if any problem arises, we will swiftly seek to make changes to ensure that the regime continues to work as successfully as the hon. Member for Harrow West made clear it has to date.

I think “Fire in the Blood”, the Government’s broader role in procurement, tiered pricing and covid go way beyond this SI, which I hope, as has been made clear, everyone in the Committee is happy to support. I am grateful to all hon. Members for attending today and to the hon. Gentleman for, as I knew he would, giving the regulations a characteristically thorough examination.

Question put and agreed to.

Trade Bill

Matt Western Excerpts

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

[Bill Esterson]

It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman has taken up other hon. Members’ time in the debate with such rubbish. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is the only formal parliamentary process in place for agreements not covered by the Bill, including with the United States. That is not scrutiny, is it?

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

Just to backtrack a moment, I remind my hon. Friend of the claims made by the Minister in his opening remarks, when he claimed we would enjoy better scrutiny than countries such as Australia and New Zealand, which I think is disputable. There was an exceptional omission, which was the United States. Should that not concern everyone?

Sale of Arms: War in Yemen

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right. Licences can be reviewed or revoked in line with the consolidated criteria. That is the basis on which arms control works in this country and always has done under successive Governments.

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

The Minister says that the Government have a very strong arms control system, but back in September last year, he will recall that the Government were guilty of granting 14— or was it 20?—unlawful arms export licences. It does seem that last week’s announcement, a day after the Magnitsky sanctions were imposed, was incredibly cynical. Is that not the case?

[Greg Hands]

No, it is not the case. I think the hon. Gentleman refers in his question to the Secretary of State apologising to the House, and indeed to the Court, for the inadvertent breaches of the Court judgment last June. However, we are talking today about a forward-looking way of doing this, using the revised methodology based on the consolidated criteria.

Trade Bill (Eighth sitting)

Matt Western Excerpts

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

[Greg Hands]

That is absolutely correct. It is a point that we have made on numerous occasions, and I am happy to make it again today.

Although this Bill relates to continuity with existing trading partners, I recognise the concerns that colleagues have about future FTAs with new trading partners, as I said during Tuesday’s debate. As the Secretary of State, my DEFRA colleagues and I have told this House and the other place on many occasions, the Government will stand firm in trade negotiations. We will always do right by our farmers and aim to secure new opportunities for the industry. Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend Member for Stafford, we would like Stafford farmers to gain opportunities to sell their high-quality produce abroad by breaking down barriers, reducing or removing tariffs, and so on. That is also very important for our agriculture; in fact, the scoping assessment for the US trade deal showed that UK agriculture would be a net beneficiary of any such deal.

All imports under all trade agreements, whether continuity or future FTAs, will have to comply with our import requirements. In the case of food safety, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland will continue to ensure that all food imports comply with the UK’s high safety standards, and that consumers are protected from unsafe food that does not meet those standards. Decisions on those standards are a matter for the UK and will be made separately from any trade agreements.

[Matt Western]

The Minister has said that UK farmers would be net beneficiaries of any trade deal with the US on exports, but I do not see how that can tally. If the United States’ No. 1 priority in any trade deal is agricultural products, is he saying that we will be exporting more agricultural products to the US than the US will be exporting to the UK?

[Greg Hands]

I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s apparent enthusiasm for Trumpian mercantilism, thinking that because UK agriculture might gain, that would somehow mean US agriculture would lose. Sir Graham, you and I both know that free trade does not work like that: there could be benefits for both sides in the trade agreement. For example, the US simply does not allow in British lamb, and currently puts very high tariffs—tariffs of between 20% and 23%—on British cheeses, including Cheddar, Stilton, and other high-quality British cheeses that we would like to sell to the United States. Of course there is an opportunity for British agriculture, and the scoping assessment that we published on 2 March shows that the UK agriculture sector has the potential to be a net beneficiary.

[Matt Western]

The Minister has very clearly said that UK farming will be a net beneficiary of a trade deal with the US. Is that correct?

Trade Bill (Seventh sitting)

Matt Western Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Thomas]

It is good to have you back in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. On Thursday afternoon, when you were not with us, we had one or two moments of light. The hon. Member for Stafford clearly began to feel nervous about whether the Bill was properly drafted, asking me to go into further detail about what was wrong with the Bill. The Minister helpfully confirmed that Command Papers published by his Department are not worth the paper they are written on once 12 months have passed and that there is absolutely no guarantee that the House will get either a debate or a vote on any future UK-US deal.

It is therefore a particular pleasure to have the chance to return to the subject of continuity or roll-over agreements and to speak to these amendments. As you will remember, Mrs Cummins, the Minister and his colleagues have presented the Bill as being purely about rolling over agreements already long since negotiated with the European Union. Effectively, they say, it is just a matter of changing “EU” to “UK”, putting a comma in a different place, dotting the odd i or crossing the odd t, or making some other little tweak—in practice, minor changes to deals that have already been done. Indeed, so confident was the former Secretary of State for International Trade about that, that he committed to get all 40 trade agreements with the European Union rolled over into UK-specific trade deals by March last year.

Imagine our surprise on seeing in the Bill clause 2(7), which suggests that a period of five years might be needed after implementation day, with the option to extend by another five years, to conclude those roll-over agreements. Bear in mind that we were told that deals such as the South Korea, Japan and Canada deals were going to be easy to complete and should be done by Brexit day—certainly, we were led to believe, by implementation day.

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

To elaborate on that very simple point, I recall very well that Lord Price even tweeted about this—it would be just a simple cut-and-paste job. We have all been misled, haven’t we?

[Gareth Thomas]

I am relatively new to the Trade Bill and am only catching up with the discussions that my hon. Friend and others have had about these continuity agreements. Something odd certainly seems to have happened. It is true that the Minister has managed to get a deal done with the Faroe Islands.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I think that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington just accused Lord Price, a Member of the other House, of misleading people. I do not think that that is a permissible term to use in our debates. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that term.

[Matt Western]

I will certainly withdraw it; I recall that I used the word, now that the Minister mentions it. What I was trying to say was that Lord Price was suggesting that there was a simple procedure of cutting and pasting, and that was clearly not the case.

[Gareth Thomas]

It is certainly true that in exchanges at the Dispatch Box over the past two weeks, we have been led to believe that these 40-odd agreements will be very easy to complete. Yet only 20 of them have been completed thus far. It looks, to all intents and purposes, as though a number of the agreements are not going to be completed by implementation day—and that, surely, is an extremely surprising eventuality for all of us to contemplate.

[Gareth Thomas]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will come to South Korea in due course.

The five-year point, perhaps, is understandable in the context of South Korea, but it is slightly odd that Ministers think they might not be able to get the South Korea deal done even in five years, and might need another five. One has to ask why we would need 10 years to put together a roll-over agreement that is simply, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, a cut-and-paste job—a matter of just switching “UK” for “the European Union”.

The hon. Member for South Ribble helped throw a little light on the issue during her questions to Mr Richard Warren, the head of policy for UK Steel, in our second sitting. In Question 59, she asked:

“Mr Warren, if there were continuity trade agreements that did not roll over, what would be the consequences for the steel industry?”.

Mr Warren talked initially about the continuity trade agreements with north African nations such as Morocco and South Africa. He then cut to the chase on one of the biggest markets for UK steel exports: Turkey. Talking about the so-called continuity trade agreement, he said:

“Turkey…probably will not be carried over, regardless of the Bill.”

He went on to say that the Bill would allow the continuity and trade agreement to happen,

“but with politics and the complexities of negotiations, I fear, that agreement will not be in place by the end of the year, which would result in 15% tariffs, on average, on UK steel going to Turkey— 8% of our exports. It is an extremely competitive market already; a 15% tariff would pretty much knock that on the head.”

He went on to underline a similarly important point:

“At the same time, because the UK has no tariffs on steel, we would still have up to half a million tonnes of steel coming in from Turkey”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2020; c. 42 to 43, Q59.]

We would not only have an uneven trading relationship when it came to steel exports, given the huge tariffs; suddenly, imports of Turkish steel into the UK would have no tariffs at all, creating even more competition for UK steel to face in the domestic market. That is a profoundly disturbing and worrying situation, and it would be helpful to have a little more clarity from the Minister, when he gets to his feet, about what is going on in those negotiations. As I understand it, negotiations have not even begun between the UK and Turkey, never mind being close to reaching any sort of conclusion.

Let us take the UK-Japan continuity agreement. Again, we are led to believe that this is simply a matter of two very close allies sitting down together briefly and changing the words “EU-Japan” to “UK-Japan”, as well as perhaps changing the odd comma here or there, and dotting the odd i and crossing the odd t. In practice, however, something very different appears to be taking place. Just on Tuesday, the Financial Times carried a story saying that Japanese negotiators have given Britain an ultimatum: “Do the deal with us in six weeks, or we will not be able to get it through our Parliament and there will be no continuity trade agreement in place by 31 December.”

Bear in mind that Professor Winters, in his evidence to the Committee on Tuesday 16 June, at Question 31, said in response to the probing of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central that

“with Japan, we do not really know what the Government intend to discuss with the Japanese Government, but the analysis that we got last month was—what shall we say?—studiously unspecific.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2020; c. 26, Q31.]

Again, when the Minister gets to his feet, it would be helpful if he gave us a little more detail on the substance of what is going on in those negotiations. I thought we were told that when we left the European Union, we would stop being a rule taker any longer, and here it appears that Japanese negotiators are telling us: “Do a deal or you don’t get your trade agreement in time.”

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point. Hiroshi Matsuura, the Japanese lead negotiator, is saying that their only focus for the next six weeks is the UK, whereas the UK is trying to negotiate with the US, the EU, Australia, New Zealand and so on. Yet we do not even have the full complement of Department for International Trade trade negotiators in the policy group: we are about 10% down on where we should be.

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is right. Let us bear in mind another point before I come on to Canada. Negotiations are going on not only with the US in relation to the transatlantic partnership with the EU, but we still have not concluded a continuity trade agreement with Andorra, as I understand it. Presumably, one of the Minister’s civil servants is sitting in a room somewhere, worrying about what will be in the UK-Andorra agreement, when they could be properly deployed to trying to sort out whatever the problems are in the UK-Japan agreement. Again, I remind the Committee that we were told that that agreement would be incredibly simple to sort out. I think the Minister said it was just a continuity trade agreement or just a roll-over agreement.

Let us come to the UK-Canada talks—one of the great favourites of the Minister. He had a little fun with us, it would be fair to say, on Tuesday afternoon. Again, however, there does not seem to be any sign of the UK-Canada talks being completed by 31 December. The Minister has been at pains to sell us the great virtues of the EU-Canada deal, and presumably—I would ask him this—there will be similar virtues from a UK-Canada deal, but why is there no obvious sign of any progress towards a signing ceremony for a UK-Canada deal?

In the quote from the Canadian Government regarding why negotiations have not advanced at a more rapid pace, they made it very clear that they were waiting to see how EU-UK talks got on. One got the strong sense that Canadian negotiators are sitting out in the garden smoking a cigar and planning their holidays. They are in no rush whatever to complete a trade deal with the UK, notwithstanding the studiously unspecific comments the Secretary of State gave us at questions last Thursday about how good natured the conversations had been with whoever she had spoken to in the Canadian Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I think the hon. Gentleman’s timeline—or the timeline of the hon. Member for Harrow West—may be a little incorrect. As it happens, I left the Department on 21 June 2018, which predated that amendment being made. In any case, the context then, which I will explain, was rather different from the context now, and I think it is very desirable that it be five years, not three years, for the reasons that I am about to explain.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding in everything that the hon. Member for Harrow West just said. The power is in large part needed to make technical changes that ensure that the agreements remain operable. The fundamental misunderstanding on his part is that it is not five years extra to complete the negotiations, sign the deals or finish the negotiations—no. It is five years that is needed to make sure the agreements remain operable once they have been signed.

Before I come to the real detail, let me give the hon. Gentleman an update on some of the agreements he asked about. It was interesting to hear him focus on Andorra and San Marino. Those countries are, of course, in a customs union with the European Union.

We are in discussions with both countries, but in our view, they are largely dependent on what the future relationship between the UK and the European Union looks like, for those two countries are in a complete customs union with the European Union.

The hon. Gentleman asked for clarity about Turkey. I was surprised by that question, because I checked his Twitter feed, and he does actually follow me on Twitter, which I do not take as a compliment ordinarily. He must have seen what we put out three hours ago from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade:

“Great to see”—

UK and Turkey—

“trade talks progress today. Let’s build on our already strong trading relationship worth £19bn. We are working hard to ensure we can reach a UK-Turkey trade deal at the end of the transition period.”

He has it right in front of him on his own Twitter feed; I urge him to read it. People mock social media—I might have been critical of social media in my time—but they occasionally perform a useful function. Helping us to keep up to date with what is going on in the world is one of the most useful aspects. So there he has it from just three hours ago.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the so-called temporary agreement with South Korea. It is not a temporary agreement. The agreement includes a review clause after two years, which is a standard feature of many international trade agreements. The review clause states—I am paraphrasing slightly—that if the two parties do not believe it is mutually advantageous to continue the agreement, there is the option not to. That does not mean to say that it is a temporary agreement. All international agreements can be cancelled by one party or the other, if they feel the agreement is no longer mutually advantageous. Of course it leaves open the possibility of doing a more extensive agreement in the future, but that is the case with all trade agreements.

When a country signs an agreement, no one is saying that it will stay in place forever. There may be opportunities in future to extend it into areas of trade that had not been thought of when the original agreement was signed. That is an entirely normal phenomenon. For example, the EU and Mexico have done an enhanced agreement based on their original agreement, which dated from about 2000 or 2002, to bring it up to date. New things come along, such as e-commerce and so on, so of course trade agreements are updated, but it is wrong to describe that trade agreement as temporary.

We are in discussions with Canada, but I return to the points that the hon. Gentleman made on Tuesday. He is so against the Canada agreement that, if there were any delay in the discussions with Canada, he should be cheering that not condemning it, because he is opposed to the agreement in the first place. I thought that would update him on where we are with the agreement.

Let me describe what it is all about. In the case of a transition mutual recognition agreement, we may need to change secondary legislation after the point of signing, and after 1 January 2021, to update the names of awarding bodies and third countries so that UK businesses can continue to use such bodies legally. It is not extra negotiating time. It is extra time to ensure that the agreement remains operable.

Alternatively, where our trade agreements reference international standards, such as environmental protection, we may need to update references in domestic legislation to ensure that we remain in compliance with our international agreements. Equally, a potential use of the power could be to upgrade the list of entities subject to procurement obligations to reflect machinery of government changes.

I used the example last week of DCMS changing its name from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. That name change might need to be reflected to keep one of those agreements operable, so a change in domestic legislation would ensure that the procurement obligations in the agreement are kept operable. It is not extra negotiating time. The power could also be used to update the list of entities subject to procurement obligations, as I have said.

I think there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the power. If Opposition Members had expressed concerns about the breadth of the power—in other words, the ability to carry on amending legislation for many years afterwards—that would be a much more legitimate concern than the professed concern about extra negotiating time. The Bill has been scrutinised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Its 33rd report on the 2017-19 Bill raised no concerns about the delegated powers in the Bill, including the sunset clause, and welcomed our move to introduce the affirmative procedure for any regulations made. I see no reason why it should reach a different conclusion on this Bill.

[Matt Western]

I just want to understand the point the Minister is making. I understand the importance of it, but does it not suggest that the three-year clause in the previous Bill showed a degree of naivety on the part of Government—that they would have sufficient time on the other side to negotiate further agreements with these countries?

[Greg Hands]

No, I do not accept that. It has nothing to do with the negotiations; it is all about keeping the agreements operable. It is a matter of judgment, and our judgment is that five years is a reasonable time. It is renewable by the affirmative assent of both Houses. We think that that is a reasonable time to keep these powers in place, so that we can then make further changes as needed to keep those agreements operable, and it is renewable by both Houses.