Leisure Centres: Government Support

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

The hon. Lady rightly predicts that I cannot make a financial statement here—my colleagues in the Treasury would be extremely angry with me if I did—but I will come on in a moment to some of the work we are doing.

We have also provided business rates relief for those providing these essential services in the private sector, which will remain in place until March 2024. Throughout the implementation of the energy bill relief scheme, officials in my Department and I have been working closely with partners in the sector, such as ukactive, and with colleagues in local government, such as the Local Government Association, to monitor the scheme’s impact and make sure that we are fully aware of the situation facing the leisure sector. Their feedback and the insights they have been providing and sharing with us are so important for ensuring that support can be continued where it is needed most. I take this opportunity to thank them all, as well as the staff at Sport England who have supported us with the review.

The energy bill relief scheme has been under review over the last months, and officials in my Department have engaged with colleagues in Treasury to make sure we have made the strongest case possible for further support. Outside of that energy review, the Department is continuing to review how best we can support the provisions of leisure centres across the country. That includes ongoing engagement with our partners in the public, private and civil society sectors, and across Government, and we will continue to make sure that we support those essential services every way we can. As I have said throughout my speech, I recognise the huge benefit that those services provide to our communities, to the health of the nation and, ultimately, to many of the services that Government provide. I thank the hon. Lady again for bringing this important matter to the Floor of the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I hope we are going to see the Minister’s Christmas tie on either Monday or Tuesday next week.

Question put and agreed to.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

18:33

Division 121

Ayes: 34

Noes: 300

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the Minister, I should tell the House that we have had reports that Division bells in Norman Shaw South are not working, along with a number of other things. As we anticipate further Divisions this evening, I advise Members in and around Norman Shaw South to look for other means by which they can work out whether a Division is on, including the Annunciators, mobile phones and various other things. If they cannot do that, they should really stay around the main building.

Third Reading

Free Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: First Report of the International Trade Committee, UK trade negotiations: Scrutiny of Agreement with Australia, HC 444; Second Report of the International Trade Committee, UK trade negotiations: Agreement with Australia, HC 117; Third Report of the International Trade Committee, UK trade negotiations: Agreement with New Zealand, HC 78; Fourth Report of the International Trade Committee, UK trade negotiations: Parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements, HC 815; First Special Report of the International Trade Committee, UK trade negotiations: Scrutiny of Agreement with Australia and Agreement with Australia: Government Response to the Committee’s First and Second Reports, HC 704.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to the Select Committee statement. Angus Brendan MacNeil, representing the International Trade Committee, will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions can be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call him to respond to these in turn. Can I emphasise that questions should be directed to Mr MacNeil, not the relevant Government Minister? Contributions should be questions and should be brief, and those on the Front Benches may take part in the questioning. I call Angus Brendan MacNeil.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

As a member of the International Trade Committee I endorse much of what the Chair has said, although he never loses an opportunity to attack Brexit, so we cannot entirely agree on everything.

Does he acknowledge that there is a cross-party majority on the Committee who acknowledge that the relationship between the Committee and the previous Secretary of State caused problems? There is now an opportunity to reset that. Does he agree that a majority on the Committee want more free trade deals, and we want to do all we can to facilitate that while being a critical friend?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I used to be Angus’s vice-chair, and it is good to hear that nothing has changed as far as his views.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I remember many a ding-dong that we had on Brexit, as you may recall. I thank the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) for what he said. He is right—I point out the facts and numbers around Brexit, and they are not good. I compare Brexit to going to the horse-racing with £500 and coming back with trade deals worth £2 or £8 or whatever—we are still £490-odd down, but I will leave that there in deference to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman is right that a majority of the Committee want to reset that, and under the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we want to see trade deals. The question is about the terms of those trade deals, and that is where the House should be involved. That is why we look at trade deals that the European Union might achieve with New Zealand or Australia, versus what we have achieved, and we must also remember the words of the Prime Minister, who said that those deals are “one-sided”.

I was speaking to a member of the Trade and Agriculture Commission who said that—I had better phrase it this way—the Australia trade deal was the biggest giveaway of agricultural liberalisation that has been seen in any trade agreement. We should remember that free trade agreements are not about free trade; they are about bureaucratic trade, and they usually replace tariffs with bits of paper. There is nowhere where trade occurs as freely—to return to that word—as it did with the European Union before Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his fair comments about empowering the House on trade deals. That should be welcomed, particularly by Government Members given that they are in the majority. It might also help better trade deals come into existence and be signed—trade deals that people can unite behind, rather than giveaway trade deals or, in the words of the Prime Minister, “one-sided” trade deals. I am not sure whether having revolving doors, with Secretaries of State or other Ministers going from position to position, really helps. It is good to see a retread, if I may be so gentle, because I think this is the Minister’s second or third time back—[Interruption.] The third time, with, I trust, a body of institutional knowledge coming back to the Department. There is a concern, however, that these things gain a momentum of their own. A previous Prime Minister—but which one? The one from Uxbridge—was desperate to see bits of paper being signed. There was that going on.

I understand why the hon. Member’s constituents are frustrated. The House should have a say and have input. There are people out there who will be affected by trade deals, and they should have those concerns reflected in the House of Commons so that the negotiators can know, before they start to negotiate, what the difficulties are for certain parts of the UK and, when trade-offs are made, if the damage is to Welsh hill farmers for the benefit of City types in London, that is recognised in future fiscal transfers.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank Mr MacNeil for his statement.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

That is fantastic news, and it has happened before the free trade agreement. That just goes to show that the fantastic people of Northern Ireland do not need Westminster to give them a free trade agreement.

I am coming to the end of my remarks. I will give several views to the Chamber on the vote tonight. This trade deal is globally good for the UK, as the figures show, but its level of goodness is very small compared with the badness of the Brexit debacle. Is it good for Scotland? The Scottish Government do not seem to think so. They were engaged with perhaps the way that the umbrella engages with the rain: more with disdain than any sort of welcome.

When it comes to fish and agriculture, we know that Brexit has been most damaging for the highlands and islands of Scotland, including my constituency. The Government cannot break down the effect of this agreement, but it looks like it will also be damaging. That means we have two events that are locally damaging. I am here as a constituency MP. I can weigh up the arguments as Chair of the Committee, but I am mindful that I vote as a constituency MP. All of Brexit—the entire process—has been economically damaging, but the final upshot of this deal is that in years to come, as we move towards independence, that damage will be used as an argument against Scotland being independent. It is a very disappointing state of affairs that this deliberate policy—chosen in Westminster—will do that to us, so we will not be listening to arguments like that in the future.

It is disappointing that this debate was not done properly, and that Members did not get to put their tuppence worth and argue the points that we have debated with the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and my good friend from Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), because there are legitimate things to consider, to ponder and to change our minds about so that we can get a good—and a better—deal. Some people would say that the European Union has struck that better deal. Had we remained in the European Union, we would not have lost the 5% of GDP. We may well have got the GDP gains anyway from the trade deals that the European Union has just done with those two countries. The upshot might well be that there has been no gain whatever in these trade deals, because they would have come had we not decided to damage the beer producers and exporters of Kent and many others places that have been trading, as has been done.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I used to be a fine member—but not the finest member—of the International Trade Committee, so you have just inherited my mantle, Anthony Mangnall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is putting a very brave face on this. Many commentators in the agricultural communities in this country see it far more negatively than he does. I take his point about the 15 years. The agreement will be phased in over 15 years. Many of them see this as a car crash in slow motion. If the hon. Gentleman had argued that the agreement was good for free trade reasons, fine. The minuscule GDP gain from it has been accepted. I see the most positive thing about it as access to the CPTPP, which will be coming on stream. Britain aims in the longer future to join that organisation, which I am sure he will agree is a good thing in itself. That begs the question that, if we can do that why not—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Interventions, by their very nature, should be short.

[Mr Djanogly]

I think 15 years is a very long car crash. There will be time to regularise, and the world will be a very different place in 15 years. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on the CPTPP. It was made at the right moment, because I was about to come on to it.

A further reason for supporting the free trade agreement, as the Secretary of State mentioned, is the more strategic one. If we consider that world growth over the next century is going to be dominated by Asia-Pacific, we need to be in on the action there. Negotiations for the UK’s accession to the CPTPP have now started and Australia, New Zealand and Canada are parties to that agreement. Clearly, if we had not settled a deal with Australia and New Zealand, not least given their Commonwealth status, we could have had a much weaker pitch with which to start negotiations with CPTPP. I see this Australia FTA as helping to set out our Pacific stall, enabling us to then move on.

50 Years of Pride in the UK

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I absolutely agree. I remember watching “Queer as Folk” on Channel 4 with the volume turned down as far as I could, in case someone heard. I also watched “Gladiators,” which was camp as hell. We must recognise that, too. Visibility does matter, and the generation of young people who were born into a world in which equality, authenticity and solidarity are not rights to be won but the inalienable possession of each and every one of them means they have taken political power. Those who have spoken in this debate stand on the shoulders of giants, those incredible campaigners who came before us. We need to recognise that there is an army of allies out there for whom this fight is real, because when they come for one of them, they come for all of us. That “Heartstopper” generation does not make a distinction between who is “L”, who is “G”, who is “B”, who is “T” and who is the “+“; they recognise that there is protection in the community in every single one of them. They each have a voice, their potential activism and a vote.

Finally, I wish to put on record my thanks to everyone who has spoken. The words from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) about LGBT personnel serving in our armed forces were especially powerful, and I hope that that report delivers real justice for those people, who have stepped up to serve our country and deserve proper justice. If Parliament is to have a 100th anniversary debate on celebrating Pride—and, my word, who knows how camp I will be by that point—we first need to defend it today. We need to make sure that there is no roll-back abroad or at home. That means the active participation of each and every one of us, not just those people who identify as LGBT+, our allies, but all those people within our wider community for whom things are all right at the moment. They feel that they do not need to step up, but we need to wake our LGBT family up from that comfortable complacency and get everyone fighting, because our rights are not inalienable unless we fight for them. We need to make sure that we keep fighting for equality so that every young person can grow up being authentically themselves.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I hope that medical research can advance sufficiently that I will be around for the 100th anniversary—I live in hope, too. We now come to the wind-ups and Kirsten Oswald.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley]

I thank all Members who have contributed to today’s debate. It has been an informative and, as always, passionate debate, but as we heard from Members across the House, we cannot underestimate the potential for a backlash. We must guard against that in this House and everywhere possible, to ensure that in the future, the rights that we fundamentally take for granted are not taken back. These are fundamental human rights. Above all, I wish everyone celebrating this weekend a very happy Pride.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Sometimes I think I am a poor gay. I do not like the Eurovision song contest, and I have never been to a Eurovision song contest party in my life—unlike, I suspect, everybody else here. “Heartstopper”, however—well, we did not have a programme like that when I was a kid. It would probably have been illegal. What an incredible production that is. Not only is it there, but it is now going into its second series. Sometimes when people ask me why gay people make a big song and dance when they come out as gay, I tell them, “It’s because of people like you asking questions like that, because you don’t understand the trauma that so many people go through to come out as gay, or indeed why so many people in this country do not come out as gay.”

As we have said, in 71 countries it is still illegal to be gay. I remember being chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and battling with MPs from other countries even to discuss gay items. Let me say from the Chair, that I will continue to fight for gay rights throughout the world. We may have won lots of battles here, and we still have battles to do, but I, and I am sure everybody in the Chamber, will continue to fight. We will not forget the pressure that many gay people live under.

The last Pride I went to was in New York. I went to Stonewall and wore a t-shirt to say that I was a Member of Parliament, and that we had more openly gay MPs than any other country in the world. That made me proud. What do we do? We get gay MPs elected to the British Parliament. We have gay Ministers, we fly the Gay Pride flag from Government Departments, and we will fly it from Parliament as well. When we came to elect a Deputy Speaker, MPs here—both gay and non-gay—voted for an openly gay man to be a Deputy Speaker. That makes me proud. So, to everybody, have a great Gay Pride on Saturday in London and a great Gay Pride wherever you happen to be.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered 50 years of Pride in the UK.

Free Trade Agreements: Cameroon and Ghana

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

She can speak in the proper way. She should not speak otherwise.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We heard the contributions from the Opposition side in absolute silence. I now want to listen to the Minister’s response with the same courtesy.

[Graham Stuart]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

A bridging mechanism ensured continuity of Cameroon’s duty-free, quota-free access, so there was no disruption similar to that with Ghana; I am afraid that the hon. Member for Richmond Park was misled.

Some hon. Members have voiced concerns over the relationship between the Ghana agreement and that country’s ambitions for regional integration. Since 2016 the EU’s agreement with Ghana has been in place despite Ghana’s existing ECOWAS membership. That is also true of Côte d’Ivoire, another ECOWAS member with a trade agreement with the EU. Although this debate does not concern Côte d’Ivoire, it is worth noting that we have also rolled over that bilateral agreement. We are working closely with its Government to develop our relationship further. The UK’s agreements with both Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire include provisions from the EU agreements on working towards a future trade agreement with the west Africa region. We look forward to discussing this prospect with our west African partners.

On scrutiny, it is important to note that Parliament has already had the opportunity to scrutinise existing EU agreements. As with all continuity agreements, we follow the statutory process of laying agreements under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, but in line with this Government’s commitment to transparency, we went well beyond the statutory requirements of CRAG and provided comprehensive information to Parliament to support its scrutiny of our trade policy approach.

On the rendezvous clauses, our agreements with Ghana and Cameroon retain provisions from the original EU agreements, which provide for further negotiations relating to specific aspects of the treaties: for example, a provision to negotiate further commitments on sustainable development with Cameroon. This is in line with the principle of providing continuity of effect that has guided our approach to all continuity agreements. The parties are not obliged to make changes. Any updates would be negotiated, and changes to treaties would be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny. [Interruption.]

I now turn—preferably without further chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench—to the concerns that hon. Members have raised regarding the environmental provisions in these agreements. In line with our international obligations, the Government will continue to ensure a high level of protection for the environment in all new trade agreements. We have long supported the promotion of our green values globally, and this will continue now that we have left the EU and become an independent trading nation once again.

The UK’s trade agreements with Ghana and Cameroon secure liberalised tariffs for businesses and pave the way for further economic growth as the world seeks to build back better from covid-19. These deals give British consumers access to more products at competitive prices and will see more of the best of British enjoyed by the people of Ghana and Cameroon—something that it seems the hon. Member for Richmond Park is not in favour of.

I can assure the House that we remain alert to human rights and environmental concerns at all times, but we believe—unlike, it would seem, Opposition Members—that encouraging greater trade gives us an opportunity to offer a hand up to those most in need by creating the opportunities and employment they need to rise out of poverty. If we took on the suggestions of Opposition Members, we would do the opposite: we would close the door to those countries and the opportunity for their people to prosper and grow. These agreements are further evidence of global Britain’s determination to champion free trade—something that so clearly does not have many advocates on the Opposition Benches. We will champion free trade around the world that fosters growth, creates jobs, and raises living standards for all.

Question put and agreed to.

Trade Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are not going to suspend, because the Dispatch Boxes have already been sanitised and are ready to go.

Trade Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

Parliamentary approval of international trade agreements and treaties

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to the message from the House of Lords on the Trade Bill, which is to be considered in accordance with the order of 19 January. We begin with the Government motion to disagree with the Lords in their amendment 1B, with which it will be convenient to consider the other Government motions and amendments on the notice paper.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to group the amendments in such a way as to deny Members votes on specific amendments?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

As I said in my introduction, all of this is being done under the provisions of the programme motion agreed by the House on 19 January. The questions to be put at that time are governed by Standing Order No. 83G, which does not allow for questions to be put on motions or amendments moved other than by Ministers. It is therefore not possible to have a Division on certain amendments that have been tabled, but I can assure the hon. Member that everything is in order.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Lords amendments 2B and 3B, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Amendment (i) to Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 6B, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

[Greg Hands]

We move ever closer to getting the Trade Bill on to the statute books. I recognise that we are very limited in our time for debate, so I will get straight into the details. I will deal with parliamentary scrutiny, followed by standards, followed by human rights and genocide.

I begin with Lords amendment 1B, on parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament of course plays a vital role in scrutinising our trade policy. We currently have robust scrutiny arrangements that allow Parliament to hold the Government to account. The Government have provided extensive information to Parliament on our free trade negotiations, including publishing our objectives, which are also shared with the devolved Administrations, economic scoping assessments and the Government’s response to the public consultation prior to the start of each set of talks. We have also shared the text of each deal with the relevant Committees in advance of their being laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The Committees then have the option to produce independent reports on each agreement. Furthermore, if Parliament is not content with a free trade agreement that has been negotiated, it has powers under CRaG to prevent ratification by resolving against ratification indefinitely, acting as an effective veto.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

I am not going to take any interventions, because my view is that we have so little time, I think it is only fair just to continue. [Interruption.] I have made it clear that I am not going to take any interventions.

The amendment the Government have tabled is one whereby we are just talking about continuity agreements, not about agreements to come. Those deals are deals such as the ones we signed two years ago with Lesotho or with Liechtenstein, and this will have no bearing whatever on any trade deal that we negotiate in the next two years with Washington or Canberra. That is the level of contempt with which the Government Whips are treating the House of Commons today. So again, I would urge Members on all sides to reject this ridiculous wrecking effort, and vote instead for amendment 6B.

In closing, I think we can all do something today even more powerful than rejecting those wrecking amendments and standing up to the shameful tactics employed by the Government Whips. We can draw the only logical conclusion from today’s events—namely, that if we do not act to guarantee the rights of Parliament to scrutinise and approve the Government’s decisions on trade, then we leave ourselves entirely at the mercy of the Government Whips, who have shown today that they will stop at nothing to deny us a voice and deny us a vote.

We have it in our power today, by backing Lord Lansley’s amendment 1B, to guarantee Parliament a vote on all future trade deals and take responsibility in this House for ensuring that our standards and our values are not undermined by the deals that we do abroad. It is a very simple idea, and in the absence of a straight vote on what I would call the Alton amendment, passing the Lansley amendment would be the very best safety net that we could put in place to prevent the agreement of trade deals with countries that commit genocide and the very best rejoinder that we could provide to anyone who would seek to suppress the will of this Parliament. If we can achieve that outcome, we can turn this from a day of shameful, shabby, shifty tactics to a day a pride for our democracy and a day of promise for the Uyghurs.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There is a three-minute limit on all Back-Bench contributions from now.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is a very short time, so I will do my level best to get my three points across.

I just want to say something about the procedure today. Of course, we would not be sitting here if it was not in order for these proceedings, but there are different ways to be in order, and the reality of bundling together all these things into one motion—an amendment tabled by the Government—means that of course there is no way we will get to vote on the Lords amendment on genocide. I simply point out that fact. It reminds me that this little dispute is a little bit like the Handforth parish council one, and it is always a good idea to read the Standing Orders. I have read them, and they tell me what has happened: the Government have deliberately blocked this. I am sorry, but that is what this is. No point of order on that one; that is the reality. I simply say to my hon. Friends that I have been here long enough, and this is beneath them. I wish they had thought again, and I hope they do not try this one again.

I respect my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy enormously, as he knows, but I must pick up on a few points that he made, as I did table an amendment. First, he extols the virtues of the Government amendment and attacks the idea that the courts could make the judgment, as that would impinge on our position as a Parliament. Yet literally yesterday, in answer to a parliamentary question about whether genocide was a matter for the courts, the Foreign Office said:

“It is the policy of the UK Government that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for competent courts rather than Governments or other non-judicial bodies.”

I ask my right hon. Friend: what is a Select Committee? Is it a judicial or a non-judicial body? If it is a non-judicial body, the Government amendment puts the power in the hands of a non-judicial body. What are we doing? We are running in circles just to avoid the reality.

My point is that we have been a little insulting about judges in the amendment that my right hon. Friend is talking about. I have my own differences with judges, but I remind the House that when we need an impartial taking of evidence and judgment—Savile, Grenfell, Hillsborough or any of the other cases—we turn not to Select Committees but to a judge. Why do we do that? First, because we assume that they are impartial and secondly, because they are trained to take and deal with evidence. We are not; we are partial—that is why we are here. We have Select Committees and we have prejudices, and that is the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]]

Lords amendment 1B covers one of the most glaring omissions from the Bill and it simply serves to underline the ideologically driven and confusing motives of the Government, who have already dealt so much damage to people, families and businesses right across Scotland and the other nations of the UK—and for what? It is supposedly for undiluted parliamentary sovereignty, yet the Government have not seen fit to give Parliament a role in setting the agenda on trade negotiations. That is extraordinary. It is damning of this Government, given the scrutiny arrangements that other Parliaments have around the world, including the EU’s, where they have control over both mandates and the progress of negotiations. The UK has now sunk to the bottom, relative to what is undertaken elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I yield to no one in my detestation of genocide and I yield to no one in my admiration for the domestic courts of the United Kingdom. Despite the good intentions of Lords amendment 3B, it has to be faced that it has a fundamental flaw, in that it brings the domestic courts of the United Kingdom into areas where, constitutionally, they have never sought to go.

When we refer to the competent courts in relation to genocide, it is abundantly clear from the convention and subsequent legislation that we refer to the international courts and, in certain circumstances, the criminal courts of the United Kingdom in relation to individuals who are within their jurisdiction. That is wholly different from what is proposed in Lords amendment 3B, which brings the civil courts of the United Kingdom into a wholly novel area of jurisprudence, linked only to one specific issue, which is genocide in contemplation of a trade deal, not more generally.

The decisions on trade deals are constitutionally entirely matters for Parliament. That is why, despite the best endeavours and intentions of the amendment, I cannot support it and why I brought forward the amendment in lieu in my name, supported by three former law officers of the Crown. This would enable Parliament to express a clear view and would, inevitably, in real political terms, enable it to block a trade agreement with a genocidal state, because no Government could ignore that, but it would do so at the end of a parliamentary process. This would then give the appropriate Select Committee greater powers than Select Committees otherwise have, because they will be entitled not only to demand as a matter of law that the Government table the motion that they require if they are dissatisfied with the Government’s response, but to write the wording of the motion. This goes further than the powers that Select Committees have at the moment. That would be most important, as it would enable us to have a proper lock on the matter. We must not allow the courts to be dragged into an area where they have not themselves sought to go. We saw the wholly unfair and unjust criticism of our courts in cases such as the Miller litigation. To place them in this situation, where they will be obliged to step beyond what is the normal constitutional balance, would not be fair on them. They would not be in an easy position to come to a determination, as has been pointed out. Above all, it would inevitably be inviting them to trespass into areas that are highly politically contentious.

I want to have a means of scrutinising future trade deals. That is why I have much more sympathy for Lords amendment 1B than I have for Lords amendment 3B, because that would give a means of dealing with it. Lords amendment 3B, it is misconceived because of that misunderstanding in relation to what a competent court is and the need not to stretch that beyond our constitutional practices—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will leave it there, Sir Robert.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]]

Genocide and grave human rights abuses are the most horrific and wicked crimes a state can commit, and those who perpetrate such crimes should be held accountable by this Government and the entire international community. Let me be absolutely clear: they are not internal issues, as Ministers often claim, but international issues. The Government should therefore be using the trade deals they negotiate with other countries as a means of strengthening our human rights commitments, as I advocated during the passage of the Bill last year.

Yet despite so many Members from across the House agreeing that trade deals should at least uphold our human rights obligations, Ministers have shown that they believe otherwise, defeating by the slimmest of margins the amendments that would have prevented them from signing trade deals with genocidal states, and proposing today a counter-amendment that is a pale imitation of what we should be doing as a country. In acting this way, they risk further emboldening those who continue to commit serious crimes against humanity. We have, sadly, already seen where refusing to take strong action against the Burmese military for their genocide of the Rohingya, for example, leads.

The bottom line is that we should not be signing any trade deal with any state that is committing any crime against humanity. Turning a blind eye and doing business with the very regimes that torture, abuse and kill others will sign away any moral authority that we have to call ourselves defenders of human rights, to enforce sanctions against abusers, or to advocate for stronger protections. However, while the Government’s previous vote against the amendments and the amendment they propose today are bitterly disappointing, they are sadly not surprising. On far too many occasions, I have urged them in Parliament to act against those committing human rights abuses and genocide, including in Kashmir. I have repeatedly called for action to protect Kashmiris from the persecution, oppression and injustice that they face on a daily basis at the hands of the Indian armed forces, only for Ministers to utter warm but meaningless and hollow words while the sons and daughters of Kashmir continue to suffer.

Trade is one of the few tools that we have left, in an interconnected, globalised world, to pursue a foreign policy based on protecting human rights. We must therefore take strong action in this Bill to show that we value human rights and that we will stand up for the many persecuted and oppressed peoples around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) [V]]

This country should never trade with any country where genocide is being practised. We are as guilty as others when we seek to perpetuate that kind of trade. It is appalling that all five signs of genocide incorporated in the genocide convention are now present in China in Xinjiang province, and that President Xi is personally implicated.

It is no use us clasping our pearls, signing holocaust memorial books or weeping about genocide in the 1930s if we are not prepared to do every single thing that we possibly can today to protect the vulnerable. That means wielding every single instrument, national and international, commercial and diplomatic, to protect the victims of abuse. We failed for far too long because we delayed in the 1930s and ended up having to go to war. Their humanity is our humanity; we are involved in their lives and in their deaths.

China already makes it impossible for us to act in an international court or any international body, so of course we should use the UK courts. I say to the Chair of the Justice Committee that Lord Hope of Craighead made it absolutely clear that a preliminary determination of genocide should be located within the High Court precisely because it is not a criminal process. That is the whole point of the amendment. It should be the courts, not politicians, that make these decisions because they know how to sift evidence and are able to require witnesses and evidence to be brought before them.

I saw the amendment that has been presented, supposedly by the Chair of the Justice Committee, last week; it was very definitely a Government amendment long before it appeared on the Order Paper. It is as tawdry a piece of parliamentary jiggery-pokery as I have seen in my 20 years in the House. Select Committees already have every single one of the powers that are supposedly being given to us by the amendment. The Government already dismisses every single substantive motion agreed by the House if they just do not like it. They did so on the Yazidis, when the House’s view was unanimous, and they did so on the Foreign Affairs Committee reports on the Rohingya.

By constructing the amendment in the way they have, the Government have deliberately denied the House a clear vote on genocide and how we would like to tackle it in relation to trade. The bottom line is that the Government seem to do everything in their power to prevent us as a nation from standing clearly and unambiguously against human rights abuses in China, and up with this we will not put.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83G), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind the House that, following Mr Speaker’s recent announcement, where second and subsequent Divisions take place on the same item of business, the doors will normally be locked after five minutes, rather than eight—that is, after eight minutes on the first Division and after five minutes for each subsequent one.

Trade Bill

Nigel Evans 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

In the House in November 2020, the Secretary of State give me an assurance from the Dispatch Box that Northern Ireland would have full access to any trade agreements struck by the United Kingdom, and that they would apply to Northern Ireland in the same manner as they do to other parts of the United Kingdom. It is of paramount importance that the Government clarify again the Northern Ireland protocol, which has seriously undermined the promises made by the Prime Minister of unfettered access to our internal markets between all parts of the United Kingdom. I have serious concerns that any future trade deal will not deliver the level access that the Secretary of State promised.

I would warmly welcome a commitment today from the Government that Northern Ireland will have full and equal access to the trade deals of the United Kingdom. As an example, I want to mention our steel industry, which is predominantly engaged in export. It contributes £3.2 billion to the Northern Ireland economy in transport, manufacturing and engineering. Much of its product has to come from GB and from mainland UK. Unfortunately, tariffs of 25% were going to be imposed on steel. We need clarity on all aspects of the additional costs that are going to be given to Northern Ireland businesses in relation to the additional paperwork that will be required because we have not left on the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom.

A major player is our agrifood industry, which contributes about £1.5 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. We welcome the support from the House to ensure that our high standards are protected. The United Kingdom leads the world in food standards and in welfare production of food, and we want to ensure that those standards are not lowered, and that other parts of the EU come up to the standards that we require.

On Lord Alton’s amendment, we as a party will be supporting Lords amendment 3 on the basis that we believe it will deal with issues such as genocide and those countries that turn a blind eye to human rights issues. It is vital that we have some pre-emptory norms set within the Bill to ensure that we can deal with those in any future trade deals that are brought forward. Northern Ireland basically has not been given the opportunity to benefit from the trade deals that the United Kingdom will benefit from through leaving the EU.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I know we have had some problems getting through to you, Damian, but I am glad to see that the communications are now working.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]]

I will be speaking to Lords amendment 7, tabled by Baroness Kidron, which seeks to protect the rights of children online with regard to the use of their data and the design of services targeted at them. This has been enshrined in UK legislation through the age-appropriate design code—something that Baroness Kidron has been a tireless campaigner for. That world-leading piece of legislation is already influencing the decisions of technology companies on how they design and create tools for young people to use online.

In opening the debate earlier, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy told the House that the Government’s forthcoming online harms Bill was the correct place to ensure the internet safety of children and all UK citizens. However, I understand why Baroness Kidron moved to insert Lords amendment 7 in the Bill, to ensure that those rights cannot be traded away in the small print of a future agreement. We can easily see how rights granted in international trade agreements on how companies can use data, where they can processes it and whether they can be subject to an independent audit of their algorithms could undermine the ability to create and enforce a robust duty of care regime on technology companies to meet their obligations to tackle online harms. In fact, in the trade negotiations between the UK Government and the outgoing Trump Administration in America, the US negotiators have sought to do just that. President Trump’s Government have sought to persuade the UK to trade away digital and data rights as part of securing a deal, as they have done in their agreements with Canada, Mexico and Japan. That would clearly be unacceptable, and I am pleased that Ministers continue to reassure me and others that they would not allow that to happen. Indeed, the UK has objected to those provisions being inserted in the trade agreement. A first positive step from the incoming Biden Administration will be to remove those clauses from the negotiating text.

It is important, though, for us to consider how the House will scrutinise detailed trade negotiations involving data and citizens’ and children’s rights online. I would not want to see trade agreements becoming the mechanism through which domestic legislation is undermined. In the agricultural and food sectors, the Government have now given a particular role in statute to the Trade and Agriculture Commission to advise Parliament on the impact of future trade deals on food standards and food safety. The Information Commissioner’s Office should have the same role on a formal basis to give advice to Parliament on the impact of draft trade agreements with regard to child protection, data sharing and data privacy.

A consumer can make a decision about whether they want to buy goods or not, depending on how they are made. Governments can enter into trade agreements to seek to reduce tariffs on particular goods to boost trade, create jobs and lower costs to consumers. All of those actions can be good things, but the impact of getting trade agreements wrong on data privacy and protection can be hard to see. It is hard to see how someone is exploiting a loophole in a trade agreement to gain improper access to someone’s data and to use it in ways to which they would not have consented. That is why it is so important that we safeguard digital rights online.

I will not be voting against the Government tonight on these amendments, but I ask the Minister to consider a formal role for the Information Commissioner to advise Parliament on future trade agreements, and in particular to make sure that they comply with our data protection laws and the age-appropriate design code, to keep children safe online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]]

I support the amendments from the other place, particularly Lords amendment 1, 2, 4 and 6. I am conscious of time, so I shall restrict my points.

First, we have to put this in context. We are in the lee of Brexit and the trade deal that has followed from that, which has taken us into new territory. Speed will be required because of the urgency of the situation. We must try to minimise difficulties and maximise employment opportunities. What we are seeing at ports is shameful, frankly, and we cannot have that continuing or being replicated. But some things have to remain constant and some standards have to be maintained. As other Members have correctly said, parliamentary scrutiny is essential. This is a democracy, and that deal fundamentally affects each and every one of our people, so we have to ensure that Parliament is able to properly scrutinise it.

Secondly, we have to ensure that food and animal welfare standards are maintained. We are rightly proud of those high standards and have always adhered to them here, which must be maintained. Thirdly, it is absolutely essential that the national health service’s being free at the point of delivery and predicated on being a service delivered by a public duty, rather than by private practices, is maintained. We have to ensure the integrity of the NHS and ensure that it is not undermined.

Putting that into context, we have to remember that we are in a situation where urgency is to the forefront, but we are also at a time when we have to negotiate trade deals that are by their very nature complicated. A trade deal with the United States will be essential, given the nature and scale of the country and its importance to us. However, let us remember that the United States may be the home of capitalism and free trade, but it is deeply protective of its own sectors and industry. When it comes to a trade deal with the UK, the US will be looking after its interests, companies and people, and we have to ensure that ours are not undermined as a result. Let us also remember that US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross made it quite clear—this will continue under President Biden’s Administration—that Brexit was an opportunity to eat the UK’s lunch, which means to have a go at our food and agriculture standards and to undermine the circumstances of our protecting the NHS from privatisation, so we have to ensure that steps are taken.

It is always the situation that all Governments have Executive creep—that was no doubt the situation even in the Government I served in another Parliament and institution. Governments tend to do that by nature. However, in the United Kingdom over recent generations, it has certainly become a hell of a lot worse, which requires to be addressed. The nadir was the shameful absence of opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill for Brexit. It may have had to be delivered in the last few days before Brexit, but the almost total absence of that opportunity cannot be allowed to be replicated, because at the end of the day, in my constituency, high food and agriculture standards are essential. We make premium products there, and we cannot have a race to the bottom that would see our own industry undermined. We have to protect and cherish our health service. We welcome the steps it has taken on coronavirus. We have seen it hollowed out with privatisation south of the border. We cannot allow those two areas of our society and economy to be sold out in a trade deal delivered to ensure that the United States protects its own vested interests.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Gary Sambrook, for the information of the House and those contributing from outside the Chamber, Minister Greg Hands will respond to the debate at 5.39 pm, and the first Division will be called at 5.54 pm. I understand that there may be several Divisions thereafter.

Global Britain

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right that, of course, the UK global tariff has lower import tariffs than the common external tariff of the EU, but we are going to go even further than that with our new emerging markets trade scheme, which will offer more preferential rates for the lowest-income countries in the world to help their populations trade their way out of poverty, and I agree with him that that is a really important way in which we can bring more prosperity to the world.

As I was saying, we now have the opportunity to set our own path by rejecting the twin errors of values-free globalisation and protectionism. Instead, as the United Kingdom, we are rooting our approach in the fundamental values of sovereignty, democracy, the rule of law and a fierce commitment to high standards. That is why we are bringing together a coalition of like-minded nations to advance high standards worldwide—from food and animal welfare to the environment and data. With fellow democracies such as Japan and Canada, we are championing innovation, a cleaner planet, women’s economic empowerment and much more. We have demonstrated this through the fantastic deal we have struck with the EU to ensure we can keep trading freely with zero tariffs and zero quotas, alongside deals covering 63 countries. No other nation has ever negotiated so many trade deals simultaneously, and I am proud of the results we have achieved.

At this tough time, we need to embrace our future as a confident, optimistic and outward-looking global Britain, delivering jobs and prosperity at home while helping lead the fight for free and fair trade abroad. My hope is that all sides of this House can join me in celebrating how far we have come and the huge opportunity we have in 2021, striking deal after deal with our friends and family worldwide to support our values and full economic potential. This is global Britain in action.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Emily Thornberry, I would like to indicate that all Back-Bench contributions will have a time limit of three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]]

Blwyddyn newydd dda to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate.

After the political rancour of the last four years, it is important that policy makers face the reality of where we are and start mapping a vision for the future. That challenge belongs to those on both sides of the European debate. False hope that the question of Europe can be parked by the next Westminster election seems naive, considering that the agreement contains provisions for periodic full-scale reviews, with the first expected right after the likely date of the next election.

The UK’s trade relationship with the EU will always—by far—be the most important one for Welsh businesses. I am glad that the agreement maintained tariff and quota-free access to the European economic area. However, any divergence in standards will in all probability lead to justified punitive action by the European Union. It is disconcerting, to say the least, that Brexiteers are already demanding a bonfire of environmental, consumer and workers’ protections. Those hoping that the Brexit culture war is over are living in the bizarre hope that the Tories are going to give up their main political weapon, and that the European Research Group obsessives are all of a sudden going to find a new political project to entertain themselves. This sets the scene for years of further Euro-bashing to make the case for the Singapore-on-Thames group or the “Britannia Unchained” gang.

I remain convinced that the Brexit that was chosen by the British Government will be politically, economically and culturally damaging to Wales. Of course, I hope that my concerns are misplaced. Looking for evidence of this, I find myself echoing the question asked by so many commentators: what will the British state do with this mythical sovereignty that was worth the price of a hard exit? After hearing the Secretary of State’s opening remarks, I am not entirely clear about what can be achieved now post Brexit that could not be accomplished before. Reminiscing about past imperial glory is not a vision for the future in a highly complex world. If we are to have any chance of making the best of the post-Brexit world, the Westminster elites need to be urgently inoculated with a reality vaccine. A renegade state in the north Atlantic with a reputation for undermining international law and the international rules-based order is likely to find itself located firmly on the inconsequential periphery.

I echo the comments of many speakers in this debate about the regrettable decision of the British Government to cut the international aid budget. My vision for Wales is for my country to be an international force for good in the world, placing itself at the centre of global issues such as climate change, economic justice, human rights, international aid and conflict resolution. I would like to think this would be a mantle taken up by the British state, but the aforementioned priorities are anathema to a Westminster elite intoxicated on its own propaganda, preferring to live in a fantasy of hubris.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Blwyddyn newydd dda i chi hefyd, Jonathan.