International Trade

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from International Trade questions on 15 December 2022.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

According to a recent report by the Social Market Foundation, while world goods exports were 7.9% higher by mid-2022 than they were at the end of 2019, the UK’s goods exports were 21% lower. “Could do better” would be a kind end-of-term report. Will the Minister now commit to a recommendation from the Institute of Directors to monitor and publish the impact of Government assistance from the Department’s teams—both overseas and UK-based —to assess their effectiveness and inform improvements so that all businesses get the best possible support for their exporting needs?

[Andrew Bowie]

This Department and, in fact, this entire Government are committed to growing our exports. We are going to export our way to growth and, in the 12 months to December 2022, trade was worth £748 billion.

[Official Report, 15 December 2022, Vol. 724, c. 1216.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie).

An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith).

The correct response should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for bringing to my attention that it will also be a new agreement between Canada and ourselves, which I forgot to mention in my earlier answer. We are pursuing an ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement with Canada that builds on our existing trading relationship, already worth £23 billion. We have been clear that the new agreement must work for British exporters, including those in our agriculture and food and drink industries. That includes maintaining our high animal welfare and food safety standards for farmers in Ludlow and across the UK.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

According to a recent report by the Social Market Foundation, while world goods exports were 7.9% higher by mid-2022 than they were at the end of 2019, the UK’s goods exports were 21% lower. “Could do better” would be a kind end-of-term report. Will the Minister now commit to a recommendation from the Institute of Directors to monitor and publish the impact of Government assistance from the Department’s teams—both overseas and UK- based—to assess their effectiveness and inform improvements so that all businesses get the best possible support for their exporting needs?

[Andrew Bowie]

This Department and, in fact, this entire Government are committed to growing our exports. We are going to export our way to growth and, in the 12 months to December 2022, trade was worth £748 billion. We are rolling out our export support service, making export champions more visible and more available across all nations and regions of this United Kingdom. We are committed to working with small and medium-sized enterprises to get them into exporting and we are supporting those companies that export already. We are driving up exports from this country and our new independent trade policy—something that, if the Labour party had its way, we would not have in the first place—allows us to do just that.

Draft Extraterritorial US Legislation (Sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Libya) (Protection of Trading Interests) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 General Committees

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mrs Harris, for calling me to speak and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning.

I rise to speak for the official Opposition on the Extraterritorial US Legislation (Sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Libya) (Protection of Trading Interests) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022. I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of this legislation with helpful examples and I also thank the officials, who have been most helpful.

The need for this legislation arises because the UK has left the EU and is no longer under any obligation to follow EU policy. As I understand it, there are two purposes to this legislation. The first is to amend article 4(4) of the Extraterritorial US Legislation (Sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Libya) (Protection of Trading Interests) Order 1996 to correct deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU by updating a cross-reference to section 30(3) of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.

This legislative amendment continues existing policy—it maintains the status quo—and, as such, we support it. It ensures that where the UK and the US differ in their approach to sanctions against third countries—in this case, Iran and Cuba—UK companies are not penalised by the United States for not complying with the way the US sanction regime operates.

The second purpose of this legislation is to remove an obsolete reference to Council Regulation EC2271/96, the EC counter-measures regulation, which no longer applies in the UK. This is for the purpose of consistency and removes the need for the Secretary of State to have regard to measures related to the counter-measures regulation when carrying out a future regulatory review under article 4 of the 1996 order. This reflects the reality that the UK has left the European Union, and we support this measure.

Unusually, I do not have any questions to put to the Minister this morning, as I am satisfied with the explanations given for the need for and the purpose of this legislation, and I confirm Labour’s support for this legislation.

Draft Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 General Committees

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

It is a huge honour to serve under you, Ms Harris; it is the first time that I have had the pleasure. On behalf of the official Opposition, I welcome the Minister to his post and thank him for his clear explanation of the legislation. I also thank the team that prepared the explanatory memorandum, which has been very helpful, given the complexities of the technical detail.

In principle, Labour supports the legislation. It is in everybody’s interests to have clear regulations that can be implemented effectively. I will not repeat all the technical detail, but broadly the legislation has two main purposes. The first is to make the necessary changes to update legislation in line with existing policy, and we support the measures proposed. The second purpose is to prevent sales to Russia, in particular the sale of dual-use equipment—a purpose that we absolutely support.

The Opposition have long supported the principle of export controls, particularly in respect of arms or equipment that might be used for internal repression or external aggression. Labour stands unshakeably with our NATO allies in supporting the provision of military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine as it defends itself against Putin’s illegal invasion. We are keen to see the strongest possible economic and diplomatic sanctions maintained against Putin’s Russia and for any loopholes to be closed. To that end, we fully support the measures that strengthen the sanctions and provide for export controls to the Russian Federation.

Clearly, in the current context it is more important than ever to prevent the export of items such as dual-use equipment. We therefore support the measures in the legislation that prevent the sale of dual-use equipment to the Russian Federation and that put right a deficiency that arose following the erroneous removal of a provision that extended the power to refuse, annul, suspend, modify or revoke export authorisations to brokering authorisations. I welcome yesterday’s news that the Secretary of State for International Trade signed a digital agreement with Ukraine. On our TV screens, we get a small snapshot of the huge reconstruction task lying ahead in Ukraine that we want to support, and trade is a vital part of economic recovery.

The draft regulations reflect the situation in Northern Ireland—namely, to achieve the same ends, legislation pertaining to Great Britain is introduced through retained legislation, while that pertaining to Northern Ireland is introduced through the equivalent EU legislation. As we have said repeatedly, it is vital for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland that every effort is made to make Brexit work and to ensure the smoothest possible flow of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For example, we have called for an effective veterinary agreement, as the Minister will know, to ease the flow of goods from east to west.

It is a matter of deep concern that Northern Ireland remains without an Executive. It is an abject failure that power sharing has not been restored for months and months. The UK Government have achieved little in respect of bringing the communities together and helping to restore an Executive in Northern Ireland. The explanatory memorandum says that it was not deemed necessary to have any consultation. I understand that international trade is reserved to the UK Government, but given the lack of a functioning Executive in Northern Ireland and the sensitivity of anything to do with trade, have there been any discussions between the Department and officials in Northern Ireland or any elected representatives?

The explanatory memorandum tells us that the provision that extended the power to refuse, annul, suspend, modify or revoke export authorisations to brokering authorities was removed “in error”. How did that happen? As has been explained, the draft regulations rectify deficiencies. What analysis have the Government made of anything that has slipped through what we might call the net—the loopholes—and, in particular, of whether there has been any inappropriate supply of dual-control equipment to the Russian Federation or that has been prevented by broader sanction initiatives?

Does the Minister anticipate any difficulties in the implementation of the legislation? The explanatory notes say that there has been no impact assessment because of the low level of impact on any business. Nevertheless, have any efforts been made to identify any businesses that will be affected by the legislation? If so, has there been any correspondence or discussion with them? Those are the questions that I would like the Minister to answer, but I reiterate that we are, in principle, supportive of the legislation. We understand the reasons why it is necessary and would like to see it implemented effectively as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

I reassure my hon. Friend that we have extremely rigorous export controls. He raises issues and points that go beyond the remit of the regulations, but I am happy to follow up and have a conversation with him to discuss those matters. I am aware that he is extremely concerned about such issues, as indeed we all are, and I thank him for raising them, but the Chair will forgive me for taking that conversation offline.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Will the Minister respond to my question about whether any discussions about this legislation were held with Northern Ireland officials or Northern Ireland representatives? I fully understand why there did not have to be such discussions, but we understand the sensitivity of the situation.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I assure the hon. Lady that we have regular discussions. The Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who is responsible for export policy, has regular conversations with the devolved Administrations and we follow through with them on an ongoing basis, so discussions happen very frequently indeed. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady about that. I ask the Committee to support the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister Dame Nia Griffith.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Business organisations, trade unions, consumer groups and the trade Committees in both Houses have all called for greater and more timely parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals. In contrast to Parliaments elsewhere, such as the US Congress, which has scrutiny opportunities right from the initial negotiating mandate through to voting on ratification, this Government have done deals with no chance for this Parliament, and therefore the people we represent, to have a real say. With a new team in place, will the Minister now commit to meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of trade negotiations—not an afterthought—and bring back control to this Parliament?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I am afraid that I have to disagree with what the Opposition Front Bencher has laid out. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—that date is significant, because it was introduced that April under the previous Labour Government—outlines the process, which is rigorous and stacks up well with other parliamentary democracies around the world, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, which have similar systems. For example, with the Australia and New Zealand agreements combined, we delivered an oral ministerial statement at the launch of each negotiation; 10 negotiating round updates; extensive information on the deals when we reached agreement in principle; 12 sessions with Select Committees, including private briefings; eight MP briefings on the FTA programme; the Trade and Agriculture Commission reports and section 42 reports well ahead of the CRaG deadline; six months of scrutiny time; and many other things. [Interruption.] I just wanted to make that point, Mr Speaker—

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill (Third sitting)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Ms Qaisar]

I thank my colleague for his intervention. He is correct that the challenges that Scottish farmers face are the same as those faced by Welsh farmers and farmers from across the four nations. A key point that he failed to mention, however, is that in Scotland over 60% of people voted to remain in the EU, and there is still a lot of anger from Scottish farmers in that regard.

Last week, we also heard from Jonnie Hall from NFU Scotland. He said something that struck me:

“There are clear potential impacts for particular sectors that are already really quite vulnerable in large parts of the United Kingdom, not least in Scotland. I am thinking particularly of the red meat sector and how important that is to the rural economy of Scotland and, indeed, the whole economy. Scotch beef and Scotch lamb are iconic products, but we are not in a situation whereby we can stack it high and sell it low, as it were. Anything that comes along and undermines our position in that respect is clearly going to be a considerable threat—I use that word advisedly—to the viability of agricultural businesses here in Scotland.”––[Official Report, Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Public Bill Committee, 12 October 2022; c. 32, Q40.]

Concerns have also been raised by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, Kate Forbes, and the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise, Ivan McKee. They recommended that the Scottish Government do not give consent for the Bill in its current form. We need to be really careful. The UK Government must not continue on the path of creating delegated powers to implement the Bill.

Amendments 3 and 4 seek to ensure that there are high levels of dialogue and discussion between Scottish and UK Government Ministers. That dialogue would ensure that matters of procurement in Scotland are at the heart of this legislation, crucially protecting the interests of Scottish farmers. In order to support Scottish interests and farmers, I ask Members to please support the amendments.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in particular to amendments 5, 20 and 22. I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to hear that in talking about amendment 5 and consultation, which is vital, I will also refer to amendment 22 and the issue of impact assessments, so as not to repeat myself. To avoid excessive repetition, I will give examples based on the Welsh Government, but that will certainly apply to Scottish Ministers, to the Northern Ireland Administration and to regions across England. The issue for us is that here we have a clause that will implement part of a trade agreement in which we would have liked to have seen better consultation and a more nation-specific impact assessment. What we can do here is try to put in appropriate consultation before the legislation that clause 1 will allow is finalised.

It is essential that there should be consultation specific to the nations and regions of the UK for a number of reasons. In the case of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, devolution means that within areas of devolved competence, such as agriculture and economic development, there is increasing divergence in the way that things are done. Indeed, public procurement policies are different, and it is important to see the impact of the implementation of the Bill on each nation.

There may be very different economic profiles for the different nations and regions. In the case of the Bill, what is of particular significance is the relatively greater importance that the production of beef, sheep meat and dairy products has in certain nations compared with the UK as a whole. The same may be said for specific regions of England, for example, the relative importance in Cumbria of the beef and sheep meat sectors. Equally, there can be concerns for a particular region because of its reliance on fishing or a specific industry. To give an example, 70% of agricultural output in Wales is beef, sheep meat or dairy, and 70% of the farmland in Cumbria is for beef and sheep livestock farming, with a further 16% for dairy. The importance of livestock farming in Scotland has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts.

It is no secret that the farming and food processing sectors are most concerned about the treaties; those are the sectors for which ongoing consultation on the implementation of the treaties and their impact on public procurement is absolutely vital. The Government’s impact assessment singled out agriculture, food and fishing, and food processing, as the sectors that lose out in both the Australian deal and the New Zealand deal, with gross value added down in the Australia deal by £94 million, and in the New Zealand deal by £48 million. Food processing is down in the Australia deal by £225 million, and in the New Zealand deal by £97 million. Obviously, there is real worry about what will happen to our farming industry because that has a massive impact on the guardianship of the local rural community, the family farms, and affects our culture—the Welsh and Gaelic languages.

Regarding the markets, let us take the example that 85% of the beef produced in Wales is consumed in the UK, as is 60% to 65% of sheep meat. There is a question about the impact that the huge and rapidly increasing tariff-free quotas of meat from Australia and New Zealand will have on our own farmer’s ability to sell into the UK markets. While we have mentioned the issue of school meals, it is not necessarily in the public procurement of the finished product, but in the supply chains of ingredients, where we will potentially see Australian and New Zealand products—cheese or meat—displacing UK produce. That is in conflict with some of the devolved nations’ procurement policies, where there is a wish to support the local and circular economy.

Further concerns have been raised. In the New Zealand deal the weights allowed in under the tariff rate quotas refer to the carcase weight equivalent, whereas in the Australia deal the volumes are shipped product weight, which means that they could be used disproportionately for the Australians to send their most expensive cuts, thus challenging the most lucrative part of the market for our farmers. We saw something similar to this during covid: when restaurants were not allowed to open, there was a drop in demand for steaks and higher end meat products, while supermarkets continued to demand the lower value products, and that had repercussions for our farmers and food processing industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is making the case very well about the need to involve the farming and agriculture industry in trade agreement scrutiny. Was she struck, like I was, by the comments from Jonnie Hall of NFU Scotland about “retrospective scrutiny” and the fact that this weakened the role of the Trade and Agriculture Commission? Does she share my view that the evidence we heard is exactly why we need the kind of analysis referred to in amendment 7 before the regulations are implemented?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The whole point is that there should have been much better consultation, either directly with the farming unions or by their representatives in the Scottish and Welsh Governments who have raised these points and have very good, close relations with the stakeholder groups in their respective nations. As my hon. Friend rightly says, a number of concerns were raised by the NFU. The whole point of having consultation and impact assessments is that those concerns can be properly documented and we do not rush into the legislation produced by clause 1 and leave people in a more difficult predicament.

[Gareth Thomas]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why the Minister ought to be tempted by amendment 5 and amendment 22 is that they would give Essex County Council—which is currently Conservative-run but probably not for much longer, given the mess the Conservative party is leaving our country in—the chance to consult directly with small and medium-sized businesses about the procurement chapter deals that have been done in the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand free trade agreements? As a representative of the people of Essex, he would surely think that that sort of consultation is a good thing that might remedy some of the mistakes that his predecessors have made in this area.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The point is that locally based devolved authorities have much closer contact with the people they represent, so the consultation on how this is working out, what we are going to do next and what the next part of the implementation is must be able to take account of the feelings of those stakeholders on the ground who perhaps feel that they have not had a voice until now.

I pay tribute to officials in the Department for International Trade and the Welsh Government for their very positive and professional engagement. Indeed, the Welsh Minister for the Economy, Vaughan Gething, notes that there has been some improvement between the Australia deal and the later New Zealand deal, and I hope that the experience has been similar for colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and indeed for representatives of local government across the regions of England.

On procurement, the Welsh Government go as far as to say that there may be scope for businesses in Wales to take advantage of the provisions included in the UK Government procurement agreement, and that some Welsh interests in procurement were protected during the engagement with the Department for International Trade. However, Vaughan Gething says:

“I hope we continue to see improvements in the engagement we have with the UK government, and that future deals provide opportunities and benefits for producers and consumers in Wales.”

It should not be a matter of hoping or relying on good will, which is why the concept of consultation should be enshrined in the wording of the Bill and a meaningful consultation should take place before the clause allows for the implementation of the procurement chapters of the FTAs. Of course, there are certain powers that the Welsh Government have already. Under section 62 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, they have the power to make representations about any matter affecting Wales, but we still feel that this needs to be stated explicitly in relation to the Bill.

One of the issues that relates to procurement is the gradual elimination of tariffs on beef and lamb. Under the New Zealand treaty, for example, the UK or New Zealand can unilaterally accelerate the elimination of tariffs. This is clearly of huge importance to Welsh farmers, so the Welsh Government want to know that they will be fully consulted by the UK Government on any possible acceleration of the elimination of tariffs on goods from New Zealand well before any decisions are made, because secondary legislation could emanate from the clause to put that into action. Clearly, we need that consultation beforehand. Why? Because if we had had better parliamentary scrutiny of the trade deal, we might not be in this position in the first place.

[Gareth Thomas]

Given the comments that my hon. Friend has just made, perhaps the Minister will take advantage of this debate and reflect on whether his ministerial colleague, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham, was wrong to reject amendments to the Trade Act 2021 that would have increased scrutiny. As many suggested at the time, perhaps we should have a debate on each free trade deal as the negotiations are just beginning to get under way, so that interested bodies can set out their concerns and Ministers can properly understand the depth of concerns that particular sectors might have—especially on procurement, given that that is what we are debating at the moment, but more generally as well. We are only having to oppose the amendment because Ministers will not do the sensible thing and have proper parliamentary scrutiny much earlier and at the end of things.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed. As I said, there are a number of unanswered questions. For example, it would have been nice to have had some analysis from the UK Government to understand why such huge increases were agreed in the quotas of tariff-free beef and sheep meat. Indeed, the Welsh Government requested that but have not had an answer. During the negotiations, the Welsh Government also made calls for market access offers that recognise the risks that large increases in imports could pose to Welsh producers, who have to meet high animal welfare standards. All of this points to why consultation is so important from the very outset and all the way through to the stage we are at now and beyond.

This is not just about the things that have been done by the Bill; it is also about areas where the free trade agreements could have been made better. Let me take the example of antimicrobial resistance. It is okay to stay where we are at the moment, but it would have been useful to work towards a better situation and to use procurement to do that. We do not want just to say, “Well, we don’t want any more use of antibiotics.” Actually, we want to look to reduce their use, although we seem to have missed that opportunity in the trade deals.

We welcome the commitment in the free trade deal to regulate our own standards, as well as the commitment to non-derogation with respect to welfare standards, but the point is that we need the consultation. We want the statutory basis for consultation to extend much further to the point of having some form of concordat with the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Administration that set out exactly what the consultation would be throughout the process. Indeed, we have a similar concordat on justice between the Welsh Government and the UK Government.

The point is to try to give some shape to the framework, and some certainty, and such a concordat would have so much to contribute. I made a point earlier about the fact that the devolved Administrations are in many ways much more able to engage with stakeholders to represent their views. Going forward, we need to think about issues that might cause problems, such as rules of origin and the fact that small and medium-sized enterprises might struggle and need support in that respect—consultation, impact assessment and feedback are so important to getting this right.

[Gareth Thomas]

Surely one of the other benefits of consultation is that it might start the Welsh Government and the Department for International Trade thinking about how, together, they might help businesses in Wales to capitalise on a free trade agreement. My hon. Friend will remember that a previous trade Minister criticised the Department for not doing enough to support businesses trying to export. Early consultation with the Welsh Government presumably might help to address some of those failings and enable businesses, together with the Welsh Government and the Department, to begin to think more quickly about how they might take advantage of the benefits of an FTA.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed. Not only might there be a benefit, but the high penalties that can be incurred by the respective parties if, for example, they do not understand rules such as the rules of origin might be avoided. Such fears could be fed back through proper consultation and support put in place to ensure that we were able to take advantage of the free trade deals.

Another pertinent issue is the fact that we are debating legislation that overlaps with areas of devolved competence —for example, procurement policy, agriculture and economic development. We do not want the situation that arose with respect to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 whereby instead of a proper negotiation on where we should end up and what we wanted and required, we were frightened by the thought of being driven to the lowest possible common denominator on standards by the over-powerful influence of a UK Government purporting to represent the whole UK, but in fact listening only to themselves and not taking into account the views of the devolved Governments.

It is important that we recognise the powers that we have, and that the way forward is through consultation and negotiation, rather than riding roughshod over the issues. For example, the Welsh Government have devolved responsibility for setting domestic sanitary and phytosanitary strategy and policy. Clearly, that is of direct relevance to procurement and the way the FTAs were drawn up.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I reassure the shadow Minister that he will always catch my eye as long as his comments are—as they are always are—in the scope of the Bill.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend raises the importance of consultation, working together and wanting to make things better by negotiation, rather than by imposing a view by one central Government Department on areas that are actually within the devolved competence of other Governments.

I will move on to speak more specifically about the issue of impact assessment. There are various reasons for wanting a proper impact assessment of the effects on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and on regions of England. Clearly, there is the levelling-up agenda. There is the fact that different sectors are of different importance to different areas. There is also the fact that the Government’s impact assessment in respect of the FTAs is literally just a table. This is the sop we have to anything to do with the individual nations or regions. We do not have a real study of the impacts of the FTAs on those areas.

As we go forward with the Bill and clause 1, with the powers it provides, it is absolutely essential that it should include a clause for proper impact assessment. The Welsh Affairs Committee was very critical of the lack of detail in that respect. The Committee referenced the Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement, which includes a better attempt at regional impact assessment—of Wales, for example—but that again did not go far enough. There is a real need for proper impact assessment.

We have mentioned already the impact on agricultural producers and, as I have mentioned, the wellbeing of future generations. The importance of that is of course that FTAs have obligations that bind future generations. They are not things that we can go back on. That is why it would have been nicer to have had impact assessments earlier. If we had them now we could at least prevent mistakes going forward and not have negative impacts on our agricultural sector in the surrounding communities. Given that we already start with negative figures, there is clearly some work that needs to be done. The risk has been exposed. That has been detailed, yet the impact of what that means for farming families and our communities has not been thoroughly explored.

[Gareth Thomas]

The beauty of having a consultation before regulations are introduced as well as an impact assessment once regulations are about to be brought forward is that we can try to prevent mistakes and understand what might happen as a result of procurement regulations. An impact assessment can highlight to the Welsh Government and other Government agencies what ameliorative support might be needed to help businesses adjust to the impact of new procurement regulations as a result of the procurement chapters. That is an advantage of two of our four amendments as well.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed. In respect of support for businesses, there is a real concern about the cumulative impact. That, again, refers to the first amendment we debated today—the issue of what other FTAs with other countries might be included in the legislation. Also, we need to see what the situation would be if the agreement has a negative impact—for example, unfair subsidies made by New Zealand or Australia to help their businesses, or if there is a particularly high volume of imported goods. It is important that Welsh businesses can report and escalate any concerns to the relevant trade bodies and authorities. Again, the proper relationship with devolved Governments can facilitate that.

To sum up on the issue of impact assessments, the impact on sectors is very important. That dovetails with the question of the different regions in England and the different nations of the UK because different sectors can be affected by trade agreements in very different ways, particularly regarding the output and the employment in the different areas. What is the GVA in those areas? Those are all reasons why we want an absolute commitment from the UK Government to a proper consultation procedure and a proper impact assessment before the implementation of clause 1.

I want to sum up with the question of rights and the rights that we are concerned about. The Joint Committee on Human Rights did not give exactly give the ETAs a clean bill of health as they went through. We have had concerns from the trade unions. The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the fact that in the Australia deal there is no language about the protection of human rights. I note that in the response to the International Trade Committee, the Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), rather brushed that off as “Oh, there are other ways we can deal with that.” However, as we know, it has become more common for trade deals to have a wider focus.

Whereas historically trade deals would just have focused on the economic benefits of trading relationships, they have now expanded to address a wider set of cross-cutting areas, such as small and medium-sized businesses and gender, labour and environmental policy, including climate change. Those wider considerations are particularly relevant to public procurement implementation because of the role of procurement policies in protecting the environment and fair work.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights was not exactly happy—[Interruption.] It was pleased to see provisions on forced labour, modern slavery and human trafficking, but noted the limitations on enforcement and supply chains, limitations that the trade unions also raised. The trade unions also pointed out that they were not part of the stakeholder consultation and did not have their rightful place at the table. Again, consultation through the devolved Governments could give them a better voice, because there tends to be a better relationship, but trade unions should be at the table, full stop.

I will not go into more detail on climate change, apart from to say that at the time of the negotiation of the Australia deal, Australia had a terrible reputation on climate change, ranking very low in the world, with a terrible record on emissions. This might have been an opportunity, perhaps, to do rather more.

[Gareth Thomas]

It was a Conservative Government.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

It was indeed. I hope that the new Government in Australia may do something of their own accord, but we should not be leaving it to them to act of their own accord, and hoping. That is the point of the amendment. It is not enough to leave things just to happen, because they do not. Unless we put positive steps in to make something happen, it does not happen.

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point about climate. Is that not one of the differences between the New Zealand FTA and the Australian FTA? Negotiating with a conservative Administration in Australia led to a deal that does not reference climate. Negotiating with a Labour Administration in New Zealand led to substantial provisions on climate—[Interruption.] Would it not be good to hear the Minister explain how he has been talking to the new Labor Administration in Australia about how they might perhaps insert some more climate provisions into the trade relationship between the UK and Australia as a result of some of the joint committees that have been set up under the FTA?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed, absolutely. One rather suspects that it was not thanks to the UK Government, but thanks to the New Zealand Government that the climate provisions found their way into the trade agreement; they somehow got completely lost in the Australian FTA.

All these points are reasons why we have tabled the amendments. These issues are too important to be left to chance. They should be fundamental to any form of procurement policy, which should be based on a full impact assessment, full consultation and full respect for human rights and employment rights, and our goal of getting to net zero. Those are all very important points.

[The Chair]

After that big bang, I am very tempted to call the ghost of Christmas past, but instead I call the very living and very present, Lloyd Russell Moyle.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We very much welcome the prospect of increased trading opportunities with India, a country with which we have many historical ties. At the COP26 summit in Glasgow last year, Prime Minister Modi announced demanding commitments to reduce emissions. After the Government’s shocking sell-out on the Australia deal, what preparation is the Minister making to use a possible trade deal to support Modi’s ambitions and to act on recommendations from the CBI about how our trade policy can support our climate goals, such as by including incentives to meet or surpass emissions reduction targets in a trade agreement?

[Mr Jayawardena]

I am not going to comment on live negotiations. Indeed, we were delighted to welcome the Indian negotiators to London this week for a further round of discussions. We have been very clear that we want trade to be a force for good in the world, including green trade, which we believe can create thousands if not millions of jobs across Britain and indeed the world, and I am sure that the Indian Government would agree.

Transgender Conversion Therapy

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on their excellent opening speeches. I will try not to repeat too much of what they said.

I have been saddened that it has taken the Government so long to address the issue of banning conversion therapy, which was promised back in 2019, and I am absolutely horrified that the Government are retreating from including trans people in the ban. This is a shocking broken promise. I would like to give apologies for my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who cannot be here owing to another speaking engagement. I remind hon. Members that back in 2014 he introduced a private Member’s Bill to ban gay conversion therapy, which included protecting trans people, so this legislation is long overdue.

Let us be clear: conversion therapy is abhorrent. It sets out to direct an individual to one intended outcome. As has been made clear by many Members, a ban on conversion therapy does not affect legitimate clinical consultations with medical professionals. The effects of conversion therapy are devastating, from negative self-image to suicidal thoughts, with potentially tragic consequences that are every bit as devastating for trans people as they are for LGB people.

By retreating from making this a trans-inclusive ban, the Government are not only sending a message to trans people that they are not prepared to protect them and leaving trans people exposed to the appalling damage that conversion therapy causes; they are also sending a very transphobic message to wider society. That is a serious matter, indeed. At a time when trans people face appalling abuse, bullying and discrimination, and when we should all be taking a strong stance against transphobia in all its forms, the Government should be setting a strong example and making it clear that trans people are valued every bit as much as other members of society.

The UK has, in the past, been a leader and champion of human rights on the international stage, but now we are in danger of sullying that reputation and falling badly behind. Other countries, as has been mentioned, such as New Zealand, Canada and France, have recently introduced trans-inclusive legislation and, of course, it is perfectly possible to draft appropriate wording. It is high time the UK Government acted immediately to introduce a fully trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I am afraid that some of the issues with the sound have re-emerged, but I propose that we continue the debate. Hansard is taping and transcribing every word that is being said, so whatever contributions that have or will be made will be fully recorded.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister Nia Griffith.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I very much hope that the Secretary of State will agree that her Department’s business is not just about making deals but about making sure that those deals work for UK businesses.

This month, again, the British Chambers of Commerce has cited Brexit red tape as a cause of export stagnation, while IT systems failure has contributed to massive gridlock in Kent, the Road Haulage Association has warned of perishable goods going bad, and the Cold Chain Federation has said that Britain is being seen as too much hassle to deal with. So what exactly are the Secretary of State and her Cabinet colleagues doing to clear up this mess and to provide the efficient, smooth-flowing export routes to the EU—our biggest trading partner—that our businesses and hauliers deserve?

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer]

All I can suggest is that the hon. Gentleman gets his exporters to talk to me and not to him, because we will provide them with an optimistic and enthusiastic support service. He should come along on 9 March to the export showcase and find out the specifics of the practical support that we will give to his constituents.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Recent research from the British Chambers of Commerce shows that over two thirds of SMEs that export say that the EU trade deal is not enabling them to grow or increase sales. Rather than just saying that he is waiting for answers from the EU, as he did at the last International Trade questions, will the Minister tell us precisely what proposals he has made to the EU, and when, to reduce the additional cost of paperwork associated with export health certificates and to eliminate the problem of companies being asked to register for VAT in multiple EU states?

[Mike Freer]

I will take that question away to my colleagues in both the Treasury and the Foreign Office, and get her a detailed answer.