Trade Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Geraint Davies

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Minister’s announcement that today’s debate is about continuity and transparency, but the truth is that it is laced with a cocktail of amendments with very different agendas. The two most popular agendas represent attempts to lock us into either the or a customs union, as in new clause 5, or to secure a customs union were the negotiations to fail to secure frictionless FTAs, which is in new clause 18. That would be the clearest invitation to the European Union to refuse those negotiations. The third one—[Interruption.] Be patient.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) had waited but two seconds, he would have realised that I was precisely there with my third illustration of today’s agendas: the attempts to avoid free trade agreements altogether, of which new clause 3 is the most striking example, or to scrutinise them to death, as set out in new clause 20.

I wish to linger on new clause 3. It may appear to those outside this House that it contains reasonable requirements. It states that Ministers of the Crown should lay a draft of the negotiating mandate, setting out fields, sectors, principles, limits and desired outcomes of agreements that may well be an exact and absolute rollover of existing agreements that were negotiated decades ago. The truth is that this is the “we do not want any free trade agreements” clause. It would frankly be absurd to pretend that we could ever get anything done, given the requirement to ensure that

“between each round of negotiations”

of some 40 agreements

“all documents relating to the negotiations have been made available for scrutiny by select committees”,

unnamed and unnumbered. Those who drafted that new clause would clearly have been against the anti-corn laws of 1832 and against Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”. They would be against this country actually receiving anything at all in trade, specifically if we manufactured or produced it here in this country. Micro-management would run riot, and it would mean the end of all free trade agreements for all time. I therefore completely reject that approach.

My second point is that what we are talking about tonight ultimately comes down to difficult decisions about what type of nation we want to be when we leave the European Union. It has always been clear to me that if we are to leave the EU, we cannot stay in the or a customs union. It is bizarre that some Opposition Members do not see that our inability to decide our trade preferences, particularly with the poorer nations of the world that are currently disfavoured under the common external tariff regime, could not be significantly improved by having our own free trade agreements.

The next point—the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) is a classic example of this particular school of thought—is that we will not be able to negotiate effective free trade agreements on our own once we have left the European Union and the customs union. I urge all those in this House who believe that to look closely at the potential of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the warm interest from all those involved in that complicated and important agreement in an area of vital growth to the world. The opportunity for us there is significant. We should not listen to those who put up new clauses that would get rid of free trade agreements forever, and we should seize the opportunities that leaving the customs union will offer us if we are to leave the European Union, which we are.

[Geraint Davies]

I will be brief. The Trade Bill is of course the latest part of the Brexit fantasy built on the illusion that the trade we lose from the EU will be made up by the US and, in particular in this Bill, by the continuation, without any change, of the existing 14% of our trade with third countries. We know from Donald Trump that we cannot rely on the US. This is about whether we can rely on the 70 countries and 40 agreements to deliver the 14% of our trade in the same way, and the simple fact is that, rather than negotiating as team EU, any country now looking to negotiate against the UK alone is bound to want a new agreement, because we are a much weaker party.

That is why, in speaking to new clause 16, I simply ask that MPs have information about the countries that ask for changes in those agreements. The current Minister and previous Ministers have claimed that no one is asking for any changes, but we already know that both Chile and South Korea are asking for such changes. This is about transparency and scrutiny.

As it stands, the Trade Bill gives Ministers the power to amend domestic law to match any new trading arrangements, so we are talking about Ministers having the right, behind closed doors, to change standards, to change tariffs, to change human rights, to enable visas, to change environmental protections, to undermine public health and to change workers’ rights. [Interruption.] There is a bit of heckling, but the reality is that in bilateral trade agreements if Ministers decide there will be different standards, rights and protections, that may be permitted without the scrutiny of this House. Indeed, tribunals and mechanisms like the investor-state dispute system could be introduced behind closed doors. All new clause 16 says is that there should be scrutiny of that.

State Pension Age Equalisation

Debate between Richard Graham and Geraint Davies

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Graham, could you bring your comments to a conclusion quite quickly? I have seven other people wanting to speak.

[Richard Graham]

I will, Mr Davies. I was just taking as many interventions as possible.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is absolutely right. The deferral scheme depends on the individual’s circumstances. None the less, the actuaries would tell us that, on balance, most women will live longer than us men and that the four-year deferral may therefore be extremely advantageous for some people. It is just one example of the technicalities that are worth thinking about.

In conclusion, today’s debate is really important. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South was absolutely right to have secured it. Women in their late 50s and early 60s are affected. There is a serious issue of communication. A lot of this will be hard to untangle, but if the Minister can shed more light on what did or did not happen between 1995 and 2009, that would help. There is a generic issue about what happens when Government communicate, but that communication is not read or is recycled. How can Government respond to that position of professed ignorance? Clearly, it would be fantastic if transitional arrangements could be delivered, but the financial cost may be considerable.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I am afraid that I am imposing a time limit of four minutes because of the number of people who have indicated they wish to speak.

Cost of Living

Debate between Richard Graham and Geraint Davies

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

I had better give way to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), because he is likely to say something more ridiculous, as a fruitcake.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Geraint Davies

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

I certainly welcome those things. The trouble is that it is very much a U-turn—although that is fine. One moment the Government were withdrawing and saying, “We don’t have to do anything, because the market will spontaneously grow.” Then nothing was growing in the garden, so they go and put in some pot plants and that sort of thing, which is great. Hitachi is very welcome, and Tata has been mentioned. Some of those big companies, such as Tata, will make strategic investments, particularly because of the quality of the coal and the history of skills and the innovation, such as the partnership with Swansea university, where they are developing a new type of steel that has six layers, generates its own electricity and, when used to clad buildings, lowers the carbon footprint. It is the future.

With regard to aerospace, we of course have Airbus in Wales and, again, a supportive Welsh Government. Any support from the UK Government for strategic investment to boost our export and manufacturing base in modern and growing markets is very welcome. That is something we can certainly support. The more active the intervention from the Government with regard to an industrial strategy, the better. We want to see jobs, rather than people sitting on their hands—that is how the Government see it—and rather than watching bankers take loads of money for doing very little while people in Swansea and elsewhere who want to work are blamed for being unemployed but are not given a hand-up.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

I will take one final intervention before bringing my remarks to a close, because I know that other Members wish to speak.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at this stage in his long and fascinating peroration. He made several references to the fact that bankers are obscenely overpaid and that they should pay more tax. Does he think that people who earn up to £250,000 a week are underpaid, reasonably paid or significantly overpaid, and should they be making a greater contribution to the sort of problem he has been discussing? I am talking, of course, about premier league footballers. I look forward to his comments.

[Geraint Davies]

I do not want to be drawn into talking about football, because there is a rivalry between Swansea and Cardiff, and Cardiff, to be fair to them, have just been promoted. I feel that people who earn more should pay more towards the public good. Whether or not the cut-off point is £250,000, we all have a contribution to make and those with the widest shoulders should pay more and at a greater rate. There is a debate about what that rate should be, but certainly those people who advocate a poll tax that would mean the poor paying the same as the richest for local services are at the far extreme of reasonableness. Most of us, I would like to think, want the rich to pay more.

Sadly, what we saw in the Budget was the poorest paying most to pay for the bankers’ recklessness, so that a certain amount of money could be thrown to the squeezed middle in order to buy votes. That is not the way forward. We need a unity of purpose to grow in prosperity for a future that cares and a future that works. On that point, I must sit down, because I know that colleagues and others want to speak. Thank you, Mr Amess, for indulging me.