Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Speaking so late in the debate has been of real value, as I have been able to listen to so many contributions from both sides of the House. The debate has been a long time coming, perhaps even longer than many Members have alluded to. Its origins go back to the referendum campaign in 2016, when leave campaigners dangled before us the prospect of trade deals with Australia, the US and India as the main reasons for leaving the European Union, making extravagant claims about the economic benefits. The reality has clearly been very different. With a US deal off the agenda as long as the Government continue with their irresponsible approach to the Northern Ireland protocol, and other deals that have been much proclaimed in fact largely rolled over from those we had previously enjoyed as members of the EU, the Australia deal in particular was lauded, not least by herself, as the great achievement of the new Prime Minister during her spell at the Department for International Trade. It is therefore curious that the Government have been so reluctant to engage with Parliament on the discussion and detail of the deal.

When the deal was announced, Members on both sides of the House probed the Government about it. They brought their experience, as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) did strikingly in his contribution, and they raised their constituents’ concerns, as others have done today, but they got nowhere. The Australia deal was signed last December and the New Zealand agreement in February. After several months, the Government laid the Australia FTA before Parliament under the CRaG process on 15 June. Ministers promised —as others have made clear, including most recently the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly)—that there would be full opportunity for debate and a chance to shape the deal.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I know I have made a lot of interventions today. One of the reasons for Brexit, of course, was to leave the EU to make trade deals with the likes of New Zealand and Australia, which we are discussing today, but the EU has done a trade deal with New Zealand that is arguably better—[Interruption.] It is better, in fact. And the EU is heading for a deal with Australia as well. That might annoy the Brexiteers, but I really wonder what the future status of these deals might be if at some point the UK rejoins the European Union, or if, after Scotland becomes independent, it rejoins the European Union, and England and Wales trot in behind. Where will these trade deals be then? I do not think the Government have given that point any consideration. The deals are transitory.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

That was a very long intervention.

[Paul Blomfield]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and expertise on trade deals, but I do not think his question is really directed at me. He and others have made the point that the fact that the parliamentary scrutiny period for the CRaG process expired without debate means that there has been no real opportunity for us to look at the deal. The International Trade Secretary studiously dodged meetings of the Select Committee until it was too late for meaningful engagement. Today we are being asked to pass bare-bones legislation implementing an agreement that we have not been given the opportunity to scrutinise.

This matters because these deals set the scene for the way we approach post-Brexit trade negotiations. We have not done trade negotiations for many years, so it is important that we learn from the way this deal is handled and get it right in the future—we clearly did not get it right this time. Parliamentary scrutiny and oversight matter. As the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, they are important not simply for the health of our democracy, but for our economy. Members have a valuable contribution to make, as we have heard in this debate.

The reasons for the avoidance of scrutiny are becoming clearer. I know the hon. Member for Huntingdon requested positivity, but we need honesty as well. The Government’s own estimate of the benefits of the Australia deal are that it will contribute 0.08% to GDP by 2035; their assessment of the New Zealand deal is that it will add nothing to GDP. As many Members have highlighted, for key sectors, the figures are worse.

The NFU is concerned that UK agriculture will suffer as a result of the Australia deal. Its president, Minette Batters, explained that

“Despite assurances that these sectors would be afforded some level of protection, we will see full liberalisation of dairy after just six years, sugar after eight years and beef and lamb after 15 years.”

That means no restrictions on imports and open market access, which leaves no protection for UK agriculture or our standards, rights and protections. She continued:

“Just as concerningly, the UK has agreed to beef and lamb quotas which will favour imports of high-value cuts, despite this being the end of the market where British farmers tend to derive any value from their hard work. It’s also difficult to discern anything in this deal that will allow us to control imports of food produced below the standards legally required of British farmers”.

Standards are not just important to farmers; 95% of British people think it is important to maintain British food standards through trade deals. There is also concern in the agriculture sector that Australia approves the use of almost three times the level of pesticides as the UK does.

I served with representatives from every party in this House and representatives from across business and industry on the UK Trade and Business Commission. As part of our work on this deal, we heard, for example, from a beef farmer, Jilly Creed, who explained that hormone beef and antibiotic use is a big concern in the sector. She illustrated the differences between UK and Australian practice in the industry in relation to animal welfare and environmental safeguards, telling us that

“Our cattle go 30 miles down the road and are slaughtered within two hours of leaving this farm. Cattle in Australia can travel up to 24 hours without food and water”.

Kieran Box, of Friends of the Earth, talked to us about environmental issues, saying that

“Prioritising a negotiating partner like Australia…with a lack of progress towards climate targets, with some fairly poor enforcement of environmental laws at the state level, and with the lack of enforceable commitments that we see in the FTA to progress on multilateral environmental agreements, it just feels that we have a set of multilateral environmental commitments on one side and we have a set of trade agreements on the other that pay lip service to those, but in practice they are contributing…to emissions.”

The TUC told us that the sanctions mechanism in these deals for issues such as workers’ rights degradation are so

“restrictive and difficult to be actually brought into action that we don’t think it’s going to be possible to use”.

It is clear that, desperate for a post-Brexit deal, the Government were willing to secure this one at any price, regardless of the damage to communities, industries and the environment. That underlines the importance of effective parliamentary scrutiny. There is real concern that the regulation-making powers in clauses 1 and 2 will enable existing legislation to be amended significantly without scrutiny, undermining parliamentary sovereignty and transferring yet more power to the Executive.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

Is it not the case that the whole trick of Brexit was to pretend that trade deals with other countries could compensate for the loss of trade with the EU? We have seen the Government conducting a tick-box exercise where roll-over deals from the European Union were turned into so-called successes, when they were not successes—they were just a copy of what we had with the EU. Australia was the first opportunity to have a template for future deals, but the Government have fallen at the first hurdle.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend echoes the point that I am making.

I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion, but I will make a further point. Trade deals and their implementation must be developed with engagement from business and workers so that they can operate effectively.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s indulgence again. He has made some cracking points in his speech, including one about parliamentary input. We could argue that if we had a debate in Parliament beforehand, it would help our negotiating hand, because the negotiators at the table could tell their opposite numbers, “We won’t get this past Parliament, given the debate that we’ve had.” The involvement of Parliament might actually be—and have been—very helpful in those deals.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Chair of the Select Committee makes an important point. In an early intervention from the Government Benches—I do not think it was representative of the views of Conservative Members in general—it was said that Parliaments should not be involved in negotiating trade deals. That is clearly nonsense. That sort of early debate in Parliament would have informed and strengthened the negotiating process, and many of the concerns that have been expressed today would have been avoided.

When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will outline his response to the points that have been made, and what steps he feels should be taken to improve the scrutiny of future deals. I hope he would also agree that the powers exercisable under clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill should be constrained by an objective test of necessity, or at least be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

The Australia deal in particular damages our farmers in return for little economic benefit, by the Government’s own measure. It weakens food and animal welfare standards. It falls short on protection for workers. It fails to meet the commitments on climate action that Ministers promised. It is obviously—this is the point that everybody is making—a done deal; it is the new Prime Minister’s flagship agreement. But we need to address its deficiencies and learn the lessons for future FTAs, particularly about the process that we adopt as a Parliament.

I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon about the approach that we need to look at, which is used by other countries. It would provide the engagement that the Chair of the International Trade Committee talks about at an early stage of the process, and it would provide genuine involvement as the deal is secured. It would ensure not only that we have effective parliamentary scrutiny, but that we exercise parliamentary sovereignty, as we should.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I am pleased to say that my Department has recently created the new Export Academy, designed precisely to equip businesses with the capabilities and confidence to export successfully. My hon. Friend is such a champion of his local exporters, and it is so refreshing to have Government Members like him championing local business. I believe that he is holding an exporters fair shortly, and I congratulate him on that. He will be pleased to hear that 259 businesses from the north-west have joined the SME pilot Export Academy since it began, including 15 from the Burnley area. We have international trade advisers for the northern powerhouse, so additional resource has gone in there, and with his help, we will continue to champion northern businesses, and businesses from Burnley in particular, over the coming months and years.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

The International Trade Secretary described her new deal with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein as a “major boost” for our trade, but the Norwegian Government were more realistic. They said that the deal is “not as comprehensive” as our previous arrangements, that trade would be“more bureaucratic and less dynamic”and that without a veterinary agreement, there will be“a number of trade barriers”that we did not previously face. Does the Secretary of State recognise that more honest description of the deal, and will she take steps to reduce the barriers to trade that she has created for our exporters and importers?

[Mr Jayawardena]

Once again, the Labour party is obsessed by membership of the European Union. It has not moved on from the referendum, when the British people provided a clear signal to us in this place that we should get on with delivering the benefits of Brexit. This deal is a world leader in digital trade, eliminating the need for paperwork, and many countries and trade blocs could learn from that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to Yorkshire with shadow Minister Paul Blomfield.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

I am no longer shadow Minister, but happy to be contributing to this debate, Mr Speaker.

Moon Climbing, a specialist rock climbing supplier in my constituency, tells me how, since January, new barriers have damaged its trade with Europe. In line with the advice of DIT officials, it set up a base in the Netherlands to avoid the barriers and it anticipates that that will

“be our main base from which we service both the EU and the rest of the world”.

I heard the Minister and the Secretary of State say earlier that it is nothing to do with them, but, frankly, companies expect the Department for International Trade to take some responsibility for trade, so what are they doing to prevent more UK businesses moving abroad as a result of the damaging Brexit deal—losing UK jobs, GDP and tax revenue?

[Graham Stuart]

The British people decided to leave the European Union. We are supporting businesses, in Europe and beyond, but it is not overly complicated to accept that it is the Cabinet Office and the unit led by Lord David Frost that are taking responsibility for those negotiations. However, we work actively, and we run webinars with thousands attending, and I and other Ministers participate in those to give people the tools to overcome the frictions that inevitably result from our departure. I am pleased to say they are declining over time, and I am confident that we will return to where we were in 2019, when we were the only top 10 exporting nation in the world to see our exports rise and, the hon. Member will be delighted to hear, we overtook France to become the fifth largest exporter in the world.

Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am pleased to respond to the Bill for the Opposition. The Bill has only emerged within the last couple of days, so I would like to thank the Minister for his efforts to work co-operatively with us on it and for the virtual meeting that he had with me and the shadow International Trade Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I would also like to thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his office’s liaison with regard to the legislation.

The Government are bringing forward this legislation at some haste, not out of choice, but out of necessity. They need these clauses on the statute book by the end of the transition period to prevent disruption and to best tackle any relevant issues. This, of course, was never meant to be a Bill, and it may not last on the statute book for more than a few weeks. These clauses belong in the Trade Bill, which is still in the other place, and it is simply because the Government have run out of time that they are shoving them through as a stand-alone Bill. This has certain echoes of the negotiations on our future relationship with the European Union, which are running a little too close to the wire too.

We welcome preparedness for the end of the transition period, and we support this effort to minimise disruption and allow data sharing between HMRC and other bodies, such as local councils and resilience forums. However, this is another case of the Government pulling together a last-minute attempt to paper over the cracks that they have created by their failure to conduct the negotiations within a suitable timescale or, indeed, to meet any one of the deadlines—I think there have been five—that the Prime Minister has set for their conclusion. The Minister’s letter to MPs on the Bill tells us:

“The backup vehicle for these clauses would have been the legislation to implement any deal, but without a clear outcome regarding trade negotiations with the EU, we are doing the responsible thing by putting forward standalone legislation to ensure clarity at the end of the year”.

No “clear outcome” is a mild way of describing the current chaos, and let us be clear: the responsibility for that lies with the Prime Minister.

The Trade Bill, of which clauses 8 to 10 more or less make up the Bill in front of us, was first brought to the House in 2017—more than three years ago. Since then, it has been reborn, it has been amended and it has been scrambled into some quick fixes. The Opposition would like the Trade Bill to make its way on to the statute book before it reaches another anniversary; we are looking forward to seeing it back, and I will come on to that point.

Essentially, the Trade Bill was written to provide for accession to the World Trade Organisation’s agreement on Government procurement, the rolling over of trade agreements with non-EU countries prior to 31 December, the creation of a UK Trade Remedies Authority and this data-sharing provision for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The Minister will recognise that the Government have achieved the first three on that list by various means, and the fourth with this Bill.

However, we are concerned that that might leave the Trade Bill itself in the long grass—as the Minister knows; we have talked about this informally—allowing the Government to avoid some of the commitments they have now made, as contained in the Trade Bill after the excellent work in the other place. Principally, those amendments enshrine protections for the national health service and social care in any trade deals, ensure that trade deals secured take into account the human rights record of our trading partners—something that is clearly of great concern to the House, as evidenced by the urgent question earlier today—and increase parliamentary oversight by providing improved scrutiny mechanisms.

Those amendments are welcomed by the Opposition and, I am sure, by the Government too. We look forward to debating them when the Trade Bill returns, so I invite the Minister to commit to concluding the passage of the Trade Bill by the end of January and allowing the sunset provisions in clause 4 of this Bill to take effect by then. That will replace this Bill and allow the Trade Bill’s clauses to supersede it.

The Trade Bill is on Report in the other place now, and I think that will continue in the first week of January, so we feel that is an appropriate target and a deadline that the Government might make this time. I ask the Minister to commit to that. That commitment would ensure that we do not lose the Bill and that we have proper scrutiny of the very many excellent amendments being tabled in the other place. I look forward to that commitment being made as we debate this Bill this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

With the leave of the House, I shall briefly respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) disappointed me: I was so looking forward to him utilising the six hours. However, he made important points about scrutiny, additional data disclosures, anonymity of data, cross-sharing within HMRC, and food and agricultural standards, to which I shall return.

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), speaking on behalf of the SNP, was right to highlight the time wasted, and the trust and confidence in this country consequently eroded, by the consideration of aspects of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) made a good point when she asked how businesses can be prepared for our departure from the transition when the Government themselves clearly are not.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) made an important point about our parliamentary proceedings during the pandemic, which the Opposition hope the Government will reconsider. He was more modest than the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire: he was aiming for only three hours. Again, however, he disappointed us by not taking them. However, he made the important point that the Government are not in control. The repercussions of that are felt not simply in this House, but by businesses and on jobs across the country.

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) made some important points, to which I will return, about the maintenance of protections and scrutiny.

This Bill is about the management of trading relationships and allowing that to happen as smoothly as possible. On those future relationships, I hope the Minister will agree that the amendments made to the Trade Bill in the other place strengthen it and that any delay in its continued passage would not be appropriate. The Labour amendment to the Trade Bill on the first day of Report, which protects the NHS and social care from trade deals, is clearly essential. Now the US President-elect has been confirmed, many may feel there may be some reduction in concern about that, but it remains of paramount importance that our public services are protected.

The urgent question that we considered before we moved to the Bill was on the appalling treatment of the Uyghur people. It demonstrates the serious concern about human rights abuses across the world that is felt on both sides of the House. It is vital that our trade deals recognise that, and in the other place colleagues have amended the Bill to require trade negotiations to be preceded by an assessment of the other country’s human rights record. That undeniably sensible and responsible check and balance is backed up by another check, which means that, before any deal is ratified, Ministers will be obliged to show that it will comply with the UK’s human rights obligations. Finally, the Government would produce an annual report on compliance with rights laws by trading partners, and all these would be presented to the relevant committees in the Commons and the Lords, with the possibility that the courts could be used to challenge trade deals that breached rights standards.

Just last night in the other place, the Trade Bill was amended to improve the accountability of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, providing for parliamentary scrutiny, which would much improve the process. We have to accept that CRaG is wholly inadequate, as it leaves whether there is a debate and vote entirely in the Government’s gift. Such a debate and vote in Parliament happen only after the agreement is signed. There is no scrutiny of negotiating objectives or texts during negotiations.

This is done far better in other countries. We talk often about being “world-leading” in circumstances where that transparently does not apply. In this context we must recognise that other countries conduct scrutiny of trade deals much better. For example, in the US scrutiny involves unions, businesses and civil society. The amendments made in the other place at least allow for debate through which those points can be raised and the voices of those affected can be heard. So this Bill must pass, but there are wider questions about scrutiny and trade policy across the Trade Bill that require attention. I look forward to the Minister’s assurance that that will happen early in the new year, and that we can look for the Bill being concluded by the end of January.

In the explanatory notes to the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill, the Government state:

“The Cabinet Office is establishing the Border Operations Centre to manage and mitigate potential disruption caused by the new border requirements at the crucial moment of transition. Without the data sharing clauses, Cabinet Office will be limited in the data it can receive from other departments, which will significantly hamper its ability to provide the single version of truth for flow of goods through the border, including a commodity level view of flow across the border (such as medicines and food supply).”

Does the Minister accept that, without the deal promised by the Prime Minister—the oven-ready deal for which the nation voted last December—which will deliver barrier-free and tariff-free trade, the potential disruption will be far worse? We are two weeks from the end of the transition period, but this Bill will not provide a silver bullet for managing trade smoothly after 31 December. It is the deal that the Prime Minister promised a year ago and signed up to in the political declaration at the start of this year that will deliver

“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”,

safeguard

“workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection”,

keep people safe with a

“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership”

and indeed ensure the protection of the Good Friday agreement through the proper implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. That is where the Government’s focus should be right now, and should have been to ensure that we would have, as the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire said, the opportunity to debate in full the provisions of any agreement reached in good time, and to conclude that process to enable businesses to be ready.

Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

We recognise that at present there are limited circumstances in which Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can disclose information, such as when consent has been given by a taxpayer or when compelled to do so to comply with a court order. The Bill clearly continues that tight framing over the protection of information.

I have a few questions for the Minister, but I shall first comment on amendment 1. Although it is clear that amendment 1 aims to make watertight clause 2(8)—and I do understand the concerns behind that—Labour is satisfied that subsection (8) offers sufficient protection. However, I hope that the Minister can expand on that and explain what kind of instances subsection (7) might cover so that we can be fully assured on that point.

As we said earlier, this Bill is very much a lift of clauses 8 to 10 of the Trade Bill, although it diverges slightly by widening the protections in clause 2(8), ensuring that no disclosures made under this Act would

“contravene the data protection legislation, or…be prohibited by the investigatory powers legislation”,

rather than including specific references to the parts of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Data Protection Act 2018, as we saw previously. Will the Minister give us a reason for that change and let the House know what is now in scope that was not previously?

The Bill gives new powers to HMRC to share information with international bodies, local bodies, devolved Administrations and others for analysis and monitoring. Will the Minister elaborate on the purposes for which that might be done, more specifically? Perhaps he could also explain the way in which the border operations centre will use that data to support local authorities, local resilience forums and other key public services, such as hospitals and clinical commissioning groups, when transporting key medicines or vaccines during the pandemic.

A little more broadly, I wonder whether the Minister could give other details about the border operations centre and the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period. For instance, after the awarding of the port infrastructure fund yesterday, what assessment has he made of the number of ports that consider their allocation of the fund adequate to cover the necessary infrastructure changes required by the border operating model? As that fund was so significantly over-subscribed, what discussions is the Minister having with the Cabinet Office to ensure that our borders are fully operational by 1 January?

There is another point on which many of my colleagues and I have pressed Ministers. I do not think that we have had the opportunity to press this Minister on it, though, so I will give him a chance to answer. Can he tell us how many customs agents of the 50,000 recommended by the Government have now been trained and recruited? Will he also give us an update on the IT systems required to process customs and support our borders after the transition? Data sharing under the powers of the Bill is clearly welcome, but we also need the systems that sit alongside it to enable us to minimise disruption.

The Bill is needed to allow public bodies to access information about their areas and to prevent disruption. It also contains useful protections regarding data sharing, but it is a drop in the ocean when it comes to preparedness for the end of the transition period, so I hope that the Minister can answer some of those additional questions and give not simply this House, but business, the reassurance that it needs.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I wish to speak to amendment 1,

tabled in my name, and to some of the other clauses.

During the passage of the incomplete Trade Bill there were, as the Minister will have seared into his soul, a number of debates and amendments—I think amendments 33 and 34—relating to the requirement to collect data by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, specifically with regard to the exclusion of protection of legal professional privilege, which in many other circumstances would have applied. The same issue to some extent arises, in terms of the disclosure of information, in clause 2(7) of the Bill. It states:

“A disclosure under this section does not breach— (a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person disclosing the information, or (b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”

The explanatory notes make it very clear that

“Certain information held by specific public authorities are subject to constraints on disclosure. To enable sharing of this information, clause 2(7) provides a general disapplication of these restrictions.”

If I may, I will just remind the Minister what was said in previous debates on this matter. Legal professional privilege and confidentiality are essential to safeguard the rule of law and the administration of justice. They permit information to be communicated between a lawyer and client without the fear of it going to a third party without the clear permission of the client. In normal circumstances, that includes HMRC. Many UK statutes already give express protection of legal privilege and it is vigorously protected by the courts.

We are in a rather odd position where data can be collected and is required to be collected, and where legal professional privilege has been disregarded entirely. We are now in a position where clause 2(7) disregards legal privilege in terms of the disclosing or sharing of that information. The Minister may well pray in aid some of the limited protections that are offered in clause 2, but if I run through them I suspect we might conclude they are not quite as strong as the Minister might like to think they are. The explanatory notes state:

“Clause 2(8) confirms that nothing in this section authorises the disclosure of information which would contravene data protection legislation or which is prohibited under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.”

So far, so good—that is helpful, but very, very narrow. Others may say that it is only specified public authorities who can disclose or share information. They are specified in clause 2(3) as: the Secretary of State, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, a strategic highways company, or a port health authority constituted in a particular way. However, clause 2(9) states:

“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend this section for the purpose of specifying a public authority in, or removing a public authority from, subsection (3).”

Therefore, any number of other bodies could be added to that list. The other protection one could point to would be to say, “Ah, but they can be added if they are dealing with functions relating to trade.” They include:

“the analysis of the flow of traffic, goods and services...the analysis of the impact, or likely impact, of measures or practices…the design, implementation and operation of such measures”,

and so on. Those three specifics, however, are prefaced by:

“Those functions include, among other things, functions relating to”.

That allows it to be completely open-ended. It is not a comprehensive or complete list. As anyone watching will know, trade is no longer simply about traffic flows, the number of containers, quota and tariffs. It is about a whole range of things: all sorts of regulations, security, immigration and goodness knows what.

The provision is vague and ill-defined. It strikes me as being subject to scope creep by regulation. Fundamentally, it includes clause 2(7)(a) and (b), which is a get out of jail free card insofar as it disapplies the normal protections of information being disclosed, which would be subject in many other circumstances, including in statute, to legal professional privilege. That is actually a problem in the long run, but not necessarily in the short run as it allows us to get over an immediate hurdle where data must be shared. I appreciate that but, in the long run, how on earth can we say that we are a law-abiding country and that we want to adhere to the international legal system—the rule of law internationally—when we have here the disapplication of fundamental rights and protections for people not to have their information, normally subject to legal protection, shared, collected, distributed and disseminated. When the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) asked whether a private body could act as a public authority, the answer seemed to be that, yes, it could. That means that we could have a private body—a private company of indeterminate origin and a very small book value—doing something on behalf of the public, acting as a public authority, where the normal protection of data, which it may be provided with to fulfil its role, has the normal protections of legal privilege disapplied in statute.

Time is short. I know that this is urgent, I am not stupid, but this is actually serious. We cannot have a Government riding roughshod over legal protection, legal privilege, in this way over such a short period of time just because they have failed to get their ducks in a row and a proper functioning Trade Bill through where everything joins up.

It is not my intention, Dame Rosie, to press amendment 1 to a vote, but I do hope that the Minister takes seriously what I have just said and understands the possible consequences, particularly if it is private bodies acting as public authorities which have disapplied from them everything in terms of protection other than data protection and whether it would breach one other piece of named legislation. That is a serious and bad place to be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right. It is vital that we use trade as a way of motoring growth post this terrible covid crisis. We are working on negotiating a cat’s cradle of trade deals around the world to support British business. Of course, Israel is one of those priorities. It is very advanced in areas such as data and digital. There is strong scope for a world-leading agreement, and we are in discussions about that.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

From 1 January, the Secretary of State will be responsible for our trading relationship with other European countries. With or without a deal, the services sector is concerned that its interests have been marginalised throughout the negotiations with the EU. This does not just affect financial and legal services, but engineers, technicians and others. Will the Secretary of State commit to securing—as a start—mutual recognition of qualifications to enable all these crucial sectors to work across Europe?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am committed to having a positive relationship with the European Union. I speak to my counterpart, Valdis Dombrovskis, about issues concerning global trade. Of course, we want with every part of the world good trade deals that uphold our standards and facilitate increased trade in areas such as services, data and digital, but the important principle is that we cannot do that at the expense of the UK’s sovereignty. Those are the negotiations that are currently being conducted by Lord Frost.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I congratulate Lord Austin on becoming the new trade envoy to Israel. I am delighted to see the reaction on the Labour Benches—they are obviously very pleased with that appointment. We have already signed a continuity FTA with Israel, and we want to go further in a new free trade agreement in areas such as tech, digital and data. We are two tech superpowers, and there is huge opportunity for British businesses and Israeli businesses to work more closely together.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I was listening to the Secretary of State on the “Today” programme yesterday morning, when she twice repeated the Government’s mantra of wanting a trade deal with the EU just like Canada’s. But the Government will not agree to non-regression clauses on environmental protection or workers’ rights, both of which are in the comprehensive economic and trade agreement—the trade deal between Canada and the EU. The Government also will not commit on state aid beyond WTO rules, while CETA contains stronger agreements on subsidies. Could the Secretary of State share with the House whether the Government are planning to change course and accept those provisions in their deal with the EU, or will she just admit that they do not really want a Canada-style deal at all?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The reality is that what the EU is demanding goes far beyond Canada in terms of an ex-ante regime on state aid, as well as alignment with rules and regulations. We will not accept that. We do want a Canada-style deal. The reality is that the Labour party would not even accept a Canada-style deal with Canada.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting UK Export Finance. It had its 100th anniversary last year and it is repeatedly voted the best export finance agency in the world. It has a range of products and trade experts across the four UK nations and in key locations globally—we have increased that number—making it ideally positioned to support UK exporters and their overseas customers during the pandemic. UKEF, as well as having an established and successful roster of products, is addressing the emerging needs of UK exporters and has come forward with new products, most notably recently the export development guarantee, which provides general working capital and capex to support the operations of eligible exporters, following a successful pilot. I am delighted to say that UKEF has so far provided EDG support to both Jaguar Land Rover and Ford Britain worth £500 million each, and more is in the pipeline, not least for small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that businesses are concerned about the double disruption of covid and the end of the Brexit transition. The Government said that they would secure the rollover deals we need to replace those we enjoyed with more than 40 countries and trade blocs as members of the EU. Failure will leave business with increased costs, barriers and red tape, but in the last four years the Department has concluded just half the agreements it wants and not a single one since the start of this year. Will the Minister tell the House not how many are in discussion but how many will be secured in the remaining four months?

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he knows, the vast majority of the trade covered by those deals has already been secured in existing deals. Work continues and I am delighted to say that we continue to talk to those countries, as well as, as the original question suggested, supporting exporters, not least Edwin Jagger Limited, for instance, in his own constituency. That company is of particular note and could be of use to him, because it specialises in wet shaving and grooming. If it is good enough for the Chinese and the Americans, I suggest he that gets around to his local supplier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jayawardena]

As the Secretary of State and other Ministers have made very clear, what we do in this country remains in domestic law, and our trade deals do not change the fact that we have world-beating standards of labour protection. Indeed, this Government have done great work to combat modern slavery, introduce a national living wage and ban exclusive zero-hours contracts.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for taking this point of order, because it relates to the questions that we have just heard. In answer to my question on rolling over the deals that we currently enjoy through membership of the European Union, the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), said, and I quote, that

“the vast majority of the trade covered by those deals has already been secured,”

and that was repeated by one of his colleagues. It is, however, contradicted by the Department’s own website, which says that 19 deals have been secured worth £84.07 billion last year, but there are 18 deals outstanding worth £84.5 billion—and that does not even include Japan. Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct the record and confirm that the vast majority of trade is not covered by these deals, and in fact they cover slightly less than half?

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a point of order; it is a clarification. I am happy to leave it there unless the Secretary of State wishes to respond.

NHS and Future Trade Deals

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill]

I agree that it is truly a case of words, not deeds.

Although people may find it reassuring to hear the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care say that the NHS is not for sale and will not be on the table in any future trade talks, we cannot take his word for granted. Equally, we cannot ignore the remarks to which he was responding. They were made by the US ambassador to Britain, Woody Johnson, in an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr. In that interview, he confirmed that in a trade deal with the United States, the whole economy—including the NHS—would be on the table. The shadow Health Secretary described those comments as “terrifying.” He went on to say:

“The ambassador’s comments…show that a real consequence of a no-deal Brexit, followed by a trade deal with Trump, will be our NHS up for sale.”

Others such as Nigel Farage, the leader of the Brexit party, have advocated a move away from state-funded healthcare to a more Americanised model. In 2014, he told UK Independence party supporters:

“I think we are going to have to think about healthcare very, very differently. I think we are going to have to move to an insurance-based system of healthcare.”

Whatever opinions, promises or pledges are out there, it is clear that if the NHS is not for sale, it must be protected and future-proofed against the outcomes of any trade agreements with the USA and any other nation state. That, simply, is what the petition asks for.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I support my hon. Friend’s comments about the petition. I am pleased that my constituency was in the top 10 for the highest number for signatures.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the Government’s commitments. Indeed, the October 2017 White Paper on future trade arrangements said that the protections of EU free trade agreements would continue to apply in future trade agreements. Does he agree that we need to give some strength to those commitments and some assurance to the petitioners, along the lines of what the British Medical Association has requested, and that the Government and the Minister should thereby respond to the debate by committing to put into primary legislation a commitment that economic benefits cannot take precedence over public health policy in future trade agreements?

[Mike Hill]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point with which I agree. The voice of the BMA and other professional bodies is most important and must be heard.

The petition asks for the provision of “concrete safeguards” to keep NHS services out of any future trade deals. That is nothing new; that fight has been ongoing for years, even within the EU. To this very day, those British Members of the European Parliament who care about our NHS are battling to keep NHS services out of the developing Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the USA.

The Government said in response to the petition,

“The UK’s public services are protected by specific exceptions and reservations in EU Free Trade Agreements. As we leave the EU, the UK will continue to ensure that rigorous protections are included in all trade agreements it is party to”,

but that can be only an aspiration. It is not a cast-iron guarantee that the transfer of any EU regulations into UK law will specifically protect the NHS from future trade agreements. Just as the EU found with TTIP, we will need to further regulate for the exclusion of NHS services from trade agreements. Action, not words, needs to be the order of the day. Given that the Government refused in 2016 to exclude the NHS from the TTIP negotiations, that may well turn out to be a tall order.

American healthcare providers can already compete to deliver services in the UK. However, the threat to the NHS of a US trade deal would be through clauses that lock in existing levels of privatisation and prevent future Governments from rolling them back.

US Steel and Aluminium Tariffs

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

There are two things that we can do. We can help to define and identify new markets for top-end UK ceramics to guarantee the prosperity and jobs in the sector. We can also make sure that we have a trade remedies authority of our own that is able to guarantee the measures that are needed. Of course, the hon. Gentleman voted against the establishment of exactly that.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is steelworkers who are on the frontline in terms of the risk from the direct and indirect impacts of the tariffs. Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions he has had with their trade unions to address their concerns?

[Dr Fox]

We have had discussions across the whole steel industry. However, the hon. Gentleman is not exactly right. He is correct that steelworkers will be on the frontline, but they would not be the only ones affected. The problem is that there will be knock-on effects across the whole economy. As countermeasures are applied, more sectors will become involved as a consequence of the dispute. Therefore, it is in the interests not just of the steel industry, although it clearly is at the forefront of this battle, but of all our industries and all our consumers that we bring an end to what could otherwise be a very tragic episode in global trade.