Draft EU-Canada Trade Agreement Order
Owen Smith Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barry Gardiner
I see a lot of Members standing. I am happy to give way later in my remarks but I want to make progress now.
The debate has been pending since the European Scrutiny Committee granted a scrutiny waiver to the Secretary of State in October 2016 to proceed with signing the agreement in order to bring the trade elements, but not the investment elements, into provisional application. That waiver was on the express condition that there was prior debate on the Floor of the House. That debate did not take place.
It is unusual to bring a statutory instrument to the Floor of the House rather than to a Delegated Legislation Committee. The Government are pretending to have afforded the House the opportunity to properly debate and scrutinise a controversial agreement and one of the most extensive that the country has entered into—the Secretary of State has admitted as much. However, at this stage it is all too late. The agreement is signed and cannot be renegotiated.
On 5 July 2016, the European Commission published its proposals for the signature and provisional application of CETA. On 7 September 2016, the European Scrutiny Committee recommended an urgent debate on the Floor of the House, noting the significant political and legal importance of the agreement. On 6 October 2016, the Minister sought clearance from the Committee to sign the agreement without having such a debate. On 12 October 2016, the Committee granted the Government a conditional scrutiny waiver, allowing them to proceed with signing the agreement only after a debate on the Floor of the House—the Committee directed the Government to ensure such a debate. [Interruption.] I hear the Secretary of State muttering from a sedentary position, “Process, process, process,” but process is how the House ensures proper transparency and scrutiny.
On 17 October 2016, the Secretary of State advised the Committee that it was his intention to override scrutiny and proceed not only with the signature of the agreement but with its provisional application, despite the controversy attached to it and despite the fact that the House had been given no opportunity to scrutinise or debate it.
Barry Gardiner
No.
On 18 October 2016, the Government confirmed their support for signature, provisional application and conclusion of CETA. Overriding scrutiny, Mr Speaker, is no minor matter. The Committee rightly called an emergency evidence session demanding that the Secretary of State account for his decision to override the Committee’s scrutiny reserve and to proceed with provisional application. The Secretary of State had the audacity to tell the Committee:
“I very much believe in the democratic process and the importance of transparency and, as the Committee knows, I have long been one of those Members who has been very much supportive of the scrutiny process and I’m sorry that the timescales meant that it was not possible to have a debate before decisions needed to be made on CETA.”
He went on to tell the Committee that this was
“down to the parliamentary calendar and the timescales set for us. However, I therefore reinforce my commitment to the Committee today to hold such a debate and I’m very happy to have that debate on the Floor of the House. Our officials are already working with business managers to identify a date most likely, we understand, in November.”
That, for the avoidance of doubt, was November 2016.
So, November comes around and, having had no indication of a debate being forthcoming, the Committee published its summary of that urgent evidence session and noted:
“We consider such a debate to be urgent and ask that it be scheduled before 13 December”.
[Interruption.] I know the Secretary of State does not like this, because it brings up all the ways in which he has sought to avoid transparency and scrutiny in this place.
By 30 November, the Secretary of State failed to secure a debate in the timeframe he himself had suggested to the Committee. On 7 December, the Committee repeated the need for a debate and called for it to take place before mid-January 2017, recognising that the Secretary of State would not be bringing forth a debate by the earlier stipulated deadline of 13 December.
It was farcical. The Secretary of State had absolutely made it farcical, but it got worse. My office submitted a freedom of information request on 15 December requesting details of the correspondence between the Department and business managers regarding scheduling a debate on CETA since 1 December 2016. It may come as no surprise that the Department failed to respond within the suggested timeframe. However, a response was forthcoming by 25 January. Staggeringly, it admits in its response that the first attempt to bring forward a debate on CETA was not in July 2016, as one might expect, and not even in September when the House returned after summer recess. It was an email sent from an undisclosed official to the Government Chief Whip’s office on 25 October at 1.57 pm, just 24 hours prior to the Secretary of State’s scheduled appearance before the Select Committee.
For the avoidance of doubt, I want to reassure the House that the Secretary of State did not misspeak. He did not mislead the Committee in any way when he told the hon. Member for Stone that
“our officials are already working with business managers to identify a date”.
They had been: for a whole 24 hours and 33 minutes. If it should be that prior to being summoned to give evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee on why the Government had blatantly ignored the Committee’s limited and conditional waiver and the condition that a debate take place, the Secretary of State had instructed his officials to come up with a cover, at least the literal interpretation of his words was strictly accurate. More troubling is his apology to the Committee implying that there had been efforts to find time to schedule a debate, saying,
“I am sorry that the timescales meant that it was not possible to have a debate before decisions needed to be made on CETA in the Council.”
Barry Gardiner
I would give way to a Labour colleague.
Just last week, the incoming Italian Government signalled that they too would refuse to ratify CETA when the new Agriculture Minister indicated that the lack of protections for Italian food producers presented a serious threat to the sector, calling the deal wrong and risky. France, Germany and the Netherlands have not ratified the agreement, and the Dutch Government are waiting on the ECJ ruling before determining how to proceed. In Germany, the issue is being heard in a case before its domestic constitutional courts to determine whether the investment court system is even compatible with the German constitution.
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed—I will respect your decision and, in that regard, I hope that nobody else will seek to intervene as I conclude my remarks.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is important that the hon. Member for Brent North is heard with politeness, because I know that he wants to bring his remarks to an end fairly quickly. I think we should give him the chance to get on and do that.
Barry Gardiner
The real abuse is the way the Secretary of State has ignored all the waivers he has been given by the European Scrutiny Committee and all the assurances he gave that he would try to secure this debate on the Floor of the House before it became meaningless. The real abuse is the way he has conducted this whole saga over the past two years.
A Labour Government would have demanded better protections for jobs and workers’ rights. The Government’s failure to seek protections for British workers is matched by their failure to seek protections for British businesses.
Owen Smith
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am sure that the whole House is enjoying his exhaustive speech as much as me, particularly his looking through the parliamentary entrails of this issue. For clarity, is his position and that of our party now that we believe we could strike a better deal than the EU27 as a standalone nation after Brexit?
Barry Gardiner
Indeed I do. We actually said so in our manifesto. We made that clear in the manifesto that both my hon. Friend and I stood on and with which we went to the voters of this country, and he was elected on it just as I was. I propose to stand by it; I am not sure if he does.
For all these reasons, the Opposition cannot support the Government’s motion.
EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement
Owen Smith Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Hollingbery
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I must say that I do not think it is widely relevant to the matter before us. Suffice it to say that the UK Government clearly share concerns that we should have a good and friction-free relationship with the European Union after we have left.
George Hollingbery
Not for now.
The EU’s principled long-term ban on the import of whale products will not be lifted by the agreement, and the UK and the EU remain strongly committed to the international convention on trade in endangered species and the work of the International Whaling Commission.
The UK has a wealth of experience in producing the finest foods and drinks across all corners of the country. The agreement secures the protection of Scotch whisky, Scottish farmed salmon, Irish whiskey, Irish cream, west country farmhouse cheddar and both white and blue Stilton. I am proud that those products are safeguarded by the EPA.
George Hollingbery
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we should seek to do the widest, deepest and most ambitious trade deal that we possibly can.
In the light of the European Court of Justice opinion on competence in the EU-Singapore FTA of May 2017, which helped to clarify the scope of the common commercial policy, the Japan EPA is to be concluded as an EU-only agreement. That means that it will fully enter into force once Japan has ratified it, should the European Council and the European Parliament support its conclusion. I am aware of the implications of this approach on the role of Parliament in the scrutiny and conclusion of the EPA, and of EU-only trade agreements going forward, because it means that ratification by Parliament is not required for an agreement to enter fully into force. I am also acutely aware of Parliament’s interest in the Government’s approach to the scrutiny of future UK trade deals and trade policy. That is one reason why I welcome the opportunity to debate the EU-Japan EPA today, as it rightly ensures that Parliament has the fullest opportunity to scrutinise the agreement, under the current EU scrutiny structure. I am pleased to be able to go beyond what is simply required ahead of signature, in line with the Government’s commitment to transparency.
Owen Smith
I, too, warmly congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. He is making an excellent speech in which he is making a powerful case for the EU-Japan trade deal. I completely concur with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) about Japanese trade’s importance to our economy. Will the Minister concede that he can offer no guarantee that post Brexit we will have as good a trade deal with Japan, once we are a stand-alone trading nation?
George Hollingbery
All I can say is that the Government are extremely ambitious in what we want to achieve. We are seeking to achieve that trade deal post Brexit and hope very much that we will. Furthermore, we are pursuing that same opportunity with all the other current signatories to deals across the European Union.