Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I would be happy to update the hon. Gentleman with the specifics, but our analysis shows that the deal we have done with Japan will, in the long run, increase our trade but also improve our workers’ wages. These are good things. We obviously require other nations to put through legislation, to scrutinise and to get processes through their own Parliaments and committees, but that is what we will work towards. Those things will improve our economy and make a real difference to our workers and producers.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

6. What support her Department is providing to SMEs that trade with the EU.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

16. What support her Department is providing to SMEs that trade with the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mike Freer)]

To support businesses exporting to the EU, the Department launched the Export Support Service in October 2021. The ESS provides businesses with access to answers about exporting their products or services to Europe, routes to other Government services and access to other forms of export support, such as the export academy. Monthly goods exports to the EU for December 2021 are nearly 21% higher than the 2020 monthly average, higher than the 2019 monthly average and higher than the 2018 average.

[Sarah Olney]

My constituent George Chattey runs a company called LuvJus drinks. He imports his drinks, which are manufactured in Austria. He recently had a consignment stuck in a warehouse for more than two and a half months because he could not get the right advice, either when he placed the order and arranged for the export, or when the drinks were in the warehouse and needing release. Can the Minister tell me what he is doing, or what the Department is doing, to improve the quality and availability of advice to importers, both at the point where they are arranging their imports and when such problems occur? We cannot have perishable goods sat in warehouses for that length of time, and my constituent had an enormous amount of trouble getting the right advice from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and other bodies.

[Mike Freer]

Actually, no, I cannot tell the hon. Lady, because I am the Minister for exports, not the Minister for imports. What I can do is ensure that the relevant Minister comes back to the hon. Lady with a substantive answer if she wishes to write to me with the details.

UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Absolutely. Our services sectors are second only in the world. They are a fantastic part of our export market, and we want to make sure that we showcase them in all the trade deals we do and find the best tools and opportunities to share them across the world. This particular deal, as I set out in my statement, has a number of important mobility features to help provide certainty and longer continuity for those who want to move into these sectors. There is also a huge amount of opportunity through the £10 billion of Government procurement that is now available to UK businesses. This will continue to be a central part of every free trade deal that we look to arrange, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it in more detail.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

When we compare the original economic impact assessment of the Australia deal, which was released back in the summer, with the Government’s impact assessment published last month, we see that there has been a 1,000% increase in the estimated boost to UK GDP, but the small print makes it clear that that is because the Government have changed the economic model they are using to analyse the deal to one that produces a higher estimate of GDP. Can the Trade Secretary present any justification for this change, or is it simply a case of cooking the books?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Last year’s impact assessment was obviously a snapshot at the time. As the deal has continued to evolve from the agreement in principle back in June 2021, which was 12 pages of broad-brush direction of travel, the team has genuinely worked tirelessly. Working with a country in a different time zone, the team has worked through the night for many months to make sure that we drew this deal together. The continued development of all these areas has enabled us to review the original assessment. I am very happy for my officials to sit down with the hon. Lady to talk her through in more detail how we have reached this point. All these things are a moment in time, and we now have an assessment that I very much hope will be an underestimate as we see new business—we have been working on the basis of the existing businesses. We look to new businesses taking up the opportunities that this trade deal affords, so that we can grow our bilateral trade even further.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The UK’s application to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is founded mostly on its diplomatic advantages rather than on its advantages for international trade. Strengthening our ties with established and developing free market economies and liberal democracies is a positive goal in itself, and it is right that we should think about how we can leverage our international trade power to build those partnerships, but we need to balance our diplomatic interests with our economic ones.

Joining an existing economic partnership whose rules have already been developed and cannot be changed for our benefit is fraught with risk. Before accession, there should be a full consultation, debate and vote in Parliament so that every part of this country and every economic sector can review the risks and benefits and contribute to the decision. Greater scrutiny leads to better decision making. A better and more informed awareness of the risks will surely help us to better leverage any advantages.

The principal risk and, as I understand it, the reason that the Biden Administration are reluctant to sign up to the CPTPP is that the rules governing membership inhibit national Governments from pursuing their public policy objectives. That inhibition is primarily through the use of investor-state dispute settlements, which the CPTPP allows. ISDS allows private companies to sue national Governments if public policy limits their ability to make profits. ISDS has been used to challenge important environmental regulations, including water pollution controls in Germany, a ban on fracking in Canada and various regulations on mining in east Africa and South America. There is also evidence of ISDS being used to challenge health provision, labour rights and other important regulations. ISDS was used in Egypt to challenge an increase in the minimum wage. Philip Morris sued Australia for attempting to introduce plain-packaged cigarettes and Slovakia was sued for attempting to nationalise part of the health service.

The risk to the UK is clear. The need for us to take urgent action to tackle climate change has been spelled out for us once more this morning by the Climate Change Committee in its new report. This country is not on track to meet our net zero commitments without urgent further action. There is public pressure and political consensus on the need for that action and we should not put ourselves in a position where action can be undermined by carbon-emitting companies looking to make profits. There is too much at stake.

The CPTPP places obligations on members to recognise each other’s standards as equivalent. This is a huge concern for those who value the UK’s high standards of agriculture and food safety. Enabling the import of agricultural and food products into this country that do not meet our existing thresholds or welfare and quality will weaken our domestic producers.

I was going to make some observations about data, but the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) who spoke just before me covered that really well, and I merely endorse his comments.

If we were firmly focused on our diplomatic and trade interests, we would not have left the single market or the customs union. As we try to mitigate the various impacts of those Government decisions, we need to be honest about the trade-offs required from different courses of action. Are the risks of entering into this partnership worth the 0.017% uplift in GDP? The public deserves a proper scrutiny of these plans, so that we can make the best decision in the national interest.

Free Trade Agreement Negotiations: Australia

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my right hon. Friend. There are huge opportunities for British products overseas. There is a growing global market for these products. The vast majority of Australian beef and lamb goes to the Asian markets, where prices are higher. The opportunity for Welsh lamb and beef lies in getting better access to those markets so that we too can benefit from those higher prices. I welcome the opportunity to work with the farming industry. I have already talked to the National Farmers Union about how we can work closely together to promote British exports and get more agriculture counsellors into those markets so that we can realise the opportunities of this deal.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

The Secretary of State just referred to the fact that Australia is 9,000 miles away compared with the EU markets and the trade we were doing with it. I would be grateful if she could confirm how this deal will help the UK reduce its carbon emissions in international trade. What will this deal do to help the Government achieve their net zero goals by 2030?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am pleased to say that this deal is the first that Australia has signed that has specific references to our achieving our climate change objectives. We are working very closely with the Australian Government and other allies to reach net zero.

Free Trade Agreements: Cameroon and Ghana

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Thank you very much for granting this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. While the UK-Australia trade deal has been getting a great deal of attention recently, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the UK’s agreements with Cameroon and Ghana. I wish to raise the opportunities that the Minister and his Department have missed and the distressing lack of ambition that has been shown in these deals.

Throughout the passage of the Trade Act 2021, I and many other Members across the House raised our concerns about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals. That is just as true of these roll-over deals as it is of the brand new free trade agreements. In fact, calling these deals “roll-over deals” is somewhat misleading. While they have received very little public or parliamentary attention, they are of huge importance for Ghanaian and Cameroonian partners. The original EU deals on which these deals are based included mechanisms for ongoing parliamentary dialogue between the EU Parliament and their Ghanaian and Cameroonian counterparts.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter forward; the number of people who are here is an indication of the interest in this issue. Does she agree that historically the UK has used these arrangements to encourage liberalisation of public services and regulations, and that at times this can limit the policy space available to Governments in developing countries and prevents them from regulating their economies in the public and democratic interest? Does she further agree that, when it comes to a free trade agreement, we must be careful to build up and not make life too difficult for these nations?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Member is precisely right; that is a very real danger of these deals.

Parliamentary scrutiny has not been replicated in the new deal, which means there is no ongoing scrutiny of this deal for UK MPs, and nor have MPs been involved in setting the mandate for negotiations. As a result of the Trade Act, my honourable colleagues and I have no guaranteed vote or debate on the final deal, instead relying on the CRaG— Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—process, which was not designed for modern trade deals and is therefore not fit for purpose.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady, like me, has heard the Government say many times that the most important thing about Brexit is being able to take our own decisions on issues such as trade, rather than the EU doing so, and that the British Parliament should have a final say in all these decisions. Does she understand why the Government now insist that we must roll over exactly the same deal that the EU had with Cameroon without any questions asked, and with no changes, and that Parliament has no right to a final vote on that deal? Does that sound like taking back control to her?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Lady. No, it does not, and at every stage the Government have refused any kind of scrutiny, either of their EU deals or, as she says, the roll-over deals that have followed.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for holding this really important debate, evidenced by the number of people who are here tonight. She will be aware that the shadow Trade Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), asked the Government to hold a debate and crucially a vote on the UK’s new deal with Cameroon, but is she aware that the Secretary of State rejected that request on the basis that there had been a 14-minute debate on the previous EU deal in the other place back in November 2010 and therefore no further debate would be required? Does she think that sounds like a Government who care about parliamentary scrutiny, let alone human rights?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Member admirably makes my point for me: at every stage this Government have refused scrutiny. We cannot and do not have any oversight at all of what the British Government are doing in our name and how they are supporting our African partners.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said, the hon. Lady will have heard the Foreign Secretary say that, when it comes to trade deals,

“I can think of behaviour that would cross the line and render a country beyond the pale.”

The Biya regime is responsible for mass executions, burning villages, the killing of women, children and the elderly, torture, disappearances and sexual abuse. That is not just a one-off; it has happened on a sustained basis over four years against the English-speaking population. Can the hon. Lady possibly understand why the Government do not consider that that behaviour crosses the line and puts Cameroon well beyond the pale?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman is precisely right. The lack of scrutiny means that the events that he describes do not come to light and that we do not get an opportunity to express our view as a British Parliament on whether that is acceptable.

It is not only MPs to whom the Government are not listening. Ghana and Cameroon are part of the Economic Community of West African States, which is composed largely of least developed countries that have been automatically offered tariff-free access to the UK market under the Everything but Arms scheme. The Conservative Government had previously made it clear that regional trade was one of their major priorities for African economic development through the support of the UK’s aid budget, namely £4 million between 2010 and 2016, yet Ghana’s requests for an approach that would not cut across its ECOWAS commitments were consistently rebuffed. The liberalisation schedule will see Ghana beginning to open its markets to UK goods immediately, on a timetable that is at odds with its neighbours in the ECOWAS customs union. That totally undermines regional trade in west Africa.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Africa, I congratulate the hon. Lady on holding this really important debate that the Government have prevented. On her last point, does she agree that by rolling over individual trade agreements, the UK is losing the opportunity to put in place a generalised trade agreement with the combined African trade area, which could be pro-development and could support African countries through trade in a much more positive way?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. The point that I would like to make is that there are so many missed opportunities in this roll-over deal; the one that she mentions is absolutely an example.

With nothing stopping UK goods entering Ghana duty-free and leaking into neighbouring countries, those countries will need to introduce new border checks, which will significantly set back progress towards improved continental trading links. Does the Department have plans to do an ex post assessment of the impact of the deals on regional integration? If their effect is found to be damaging, will the Minister commit to reviewing them?

Not only have the Government not listened to Ghana, but at the beginning of this year, when roll-over deals had failed to be agreed on time, they imposed tariffs on imports from Ghana and Cameroon. In January, Brexit tariffs were imposed on a shipment of Fairtrade goods from Africa that arrived into Portsmouth, including £17,500 on shipments of bananas from Ghana. The UK has worked hard through the Fairtrade Foundation to ensure that the food coming into this country is of the same standard that we would expect our own producers to sell elsewhere.

The Government refused to waive or reimburse the tariffs, placing huge extra costs on importers, namely Fairtrade fruit and agriculture co-operatives. That totally undermines the efforts of the Ghanaian banana industry to protect the livelihoods of the many thousands of workers and their communities who rely on tariff-free access. It is outrageous that we are penalising developing countries that are improving labour rights, environmental standards and food standards. We should be supporting them.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Olney]

I might make some progress, if that is okay.

Looking forward, it is essential that Ghana and Cameroon be supported through the implementation of these trade deals and any future trade facilitation. The UK is reneging on its obligations set out in the roll-over agreement to provide aid for trade. Ghana, Cameroon and many other countries in the Everything but Arms scheme have to change their export procedures to meet HMRC import procedures. We are imposing that cost on them. Why should they bear it? Can the Minister confirm whether Ghana or Cameroon will receive any aid to support the implementation of these deals?

In a letter to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Foreign Secretary implied that Cameroon will receive no bilateral aid this year. Are the Minister and his Department not concerned that that will have a negative impact on the implementation of the deal? The UK is currently not even meeting the financial burden that we have imposed, let alone further trade facilitation costs. Will the Minister commit to protecting TradeMark East Africa and future trade facilitation funding?

I am also deeply concerned about the lack of thorough impact assessments for these deals. Unlike for new trade agreements, the Department has not published scoping assessments, or any detail about the effect of these new deals on the economy, the environment, human rights or international development. The Government have not yet published their framework for how they are approaching impact assessments after Brexit, given that they are no longer bound by the EU scheme. This was due to be published in January 2021, but no such framework has appeared. I am therefore anxious about whether deals such as the Ghana and Cameroon ones are aligned with the UK’s broader human rights, women’s rights and environmental commitments.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this very important debate. Was she not especially surprised by the timing of the UK’s new deal with Cameroon, coming just weeks after the United States Senate unanimously backed a resolution supporting the US Government’s decision to suspend trade preferences with Cameroon, and urging other countries around the world to take similar action in solidarity? Does she think that the Secretary of State was not paying attention, or that she just did not care?

[Sarah Olney]

I would not presume to offer a view, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right: a massive opportunity here has been missed to address some of the human rights and other impacts on which we could have had an influence through this trade deal.

That brings me to my question to the Minister: how is the UK assessing the impact of trade deals beyond the very rudimentary scoping assessments that happen prior to negotiations. Women comprise the majority of the cheap labour pool in both Ghana and Cameroon. They are therefore particularly vulnerable to the disruptive impact of trade liberalisation. Cheap food imports following the removal of tariff barriers have been found to reduce the domestic prices of agricultural produce and to lower women’s agricultural earnings. For example, in Ghana and South Africa, the dumping of EU poultry products following the EU economic partnership agreements have left many of the local farmers unable to compete with the tonnes of frozen chicken dropped on African markets annually. Will the Minister explain how he will know whether the deals are rolling back progress on women’s economic rights if there are no ex-post assessments?

The Department has similarly shown a spectacular lack of ambition when it comes to the environmental provisions in the deals. The UK has actually taken a step backwards, choosing to replicate the approach taken in the EU-Ghana deal, rather than using the EU-West Africa EPA model, which includes provisions for parliamentary dialogue around environmental issues. I cannot understand why the UK has not used this model, which at least takes a step in the right direction, but has instead opted for the most basic option in both of these deals. The Department’s decision not to kick-start negotiations on a sustainable development chapter with Cameroon is a sorely missed opportunity to drive environmental objectives through trade. Ghana and Cameroon are currently suffering from deforestation and land use change resulting in environmental harm, yet these deals do nothing to move discussions forward on preventing illegal deforestation.

In the past, the UK has negotiated a voluntary partnership agreement with Indonesia about the timber industry to tackle deforestation. When countries such as Ghana and Cameroon said that they could not guarantee that timber was produced legally and was not contributing to deforestation, instead of working with these countries to improve regulations, the Department has chosen to provide no support at all.

I would also be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that the deal with Cameroon is aligned with the UK’s human rights commitments.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that President Biya’s brutal and highly factional repression of the English-speaking minorities of the country, including those in the Buea region, are tantamount to human rights abuses, and the UK Government should urgently reconsider the economic partnership agreement signed with Cameroon in March?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Member for his very valuable intervention. One of the key points that we need to impress on the Minister during this debate is the human rights angle.

The International Trade Committee has asked the Government to consider withdrawing trade preferences from Cameroon in the light of the human rights abuses in the country. Academic research shows that military assets provided by the international community are being transferred to the anglophone regions and used to persecute unarmed civilians, and the major national dialogue had no legitimacy in the eyes of anglophone civil society. I urge the Minister to press the Cameroon regime to call a ceasefire and participate in inclusive talks, mediated by a third party, such as Switzerland’s Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.

Finally, I want to talk about the use of rendez-vous clauses in both these agreements. I have two concerns. First, on top of the abysmally limited scrutiny that these deals are getting now, adding further areas of negotiation after they have been signed raises questions about how those additions can be effectively scrutinised. How would my honourable colleagues and I be able to hold the Government to account on what may be significant and potentially damaging new provisions?

My other concern is the substance of those future negotiations. Historically, the UK has used these negotiations to encourage liberalisation of public services and regulations. Committing to trade rules on services, investments or patents, for instance, could undermine a country’s ability to develop strong, gender-responsive public services, to ensure that investment creates decent jobs and benefits for local economies, or to achieve access to medicines for all. Developing countries have long resisted attempts to push those issues in the World Trade Organisation, and they should not be imposed by the UK in bilateral deals.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. On that point, as she says, these trade deals require complex services to be admitted to the developing country while not providing it with support in order that it can export its products and services to the high-quality standards that we have in this country. Does she agree that that unequal use of legal and other powers is detrimental to the development agenda?

[Sarah Olney]

I absolutely agree. The main failing of these trade agreements has been the real failure to support development in both these countries. It is not in our long-term interest in any sense not to support the local economies in every way we possibly can.

Trade deals have real potential to foster improved regional trade, protect human rights and support environmental protections, but parliamentary scrutiny and dialogue are crucial to achieving those goals. These deals do nothing to raise standards.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny for the Government to say that we cannot have a vote on the UK’s deal with Cameroon today because we had a debate on the EU’s deal 11 years ago, especially since the main objection that many of us have to the UK’s deal is the campaign of violence from the Biya regime against the English-speaking population of Cameroon, which began just four years ago? Perhaps, as well as buying us a new royal yacht, the International Trade Secretary might look to buy us a time machine.

[Sarah Olney]

“Mockery” is the exact word. That is absolutely right. The Government are treating this House with utter disdain.

These deals not only represent a missed opportunity but present a real danger of contributing to environmental damage, eroding women’s economic rights and undermining developing countries’ ability to create a policy agenda that benefits their citizens. Will the Minister take advantage of the UK’s opportunity to shape the future of the global trading system by striking considered trade deals that rise to the opportunities and challenges that we all face?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)]

My thanks to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate, and I thank other right hon. and hon. Members for taking part.

We all know that trade is a key driver of economic growth that can trigger positive changes in a country’s economy. It helps to raise incomes, create jobs and lift people out of poverty. Of course, it has been the trade liberalisation over recent decades, sadly not embraced by so many on the left of politics, that has lifted more people out of poverty more quickly than ever before in human history—something that should be celebrated. Between 1990 and 2015, as trade liberalisation enhanced market access, the percentage of people across the globe living in extreme poverty plummeted from 36% to less than 10%.

We want no country to be left behind without the full benefits of free and fair trade, and we are determined to help people around the world get ahead on the strength of their enterprise and ingenuity. It is therefore excellent news that the agreements that we have secured with both Ghana and Cameroon provide tariff-free access to the UK market. That will provide a huge boost, encouraging export-led growth as well as supporting and creating jobs in Ghana and Cameroon.

Of course, increased trade with developing countries also creates opportunities for UK firms and consumers. These deals open up fast-growing markets to our exporters and provide British consumers with access to Cameroonian and Ghanaian goods, including firm favourites such as bananas and cocoa, at competitive prices. Both countries have also agreed to a gradual liberalisation of tariffs on UK goods. That will create further opportunities for our exporters, particularly of machinery and electronics, and will ensure that Ghana and Cameroon can continue to enjoy the best of British at competitive rates. These agreements will ensure that our trade with Ghana and Cameroon continues to blossom, and will support jobs and economic opportunity and living standards in Africa here and at home.

[Sarah Olney]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response so far. At the start of his speech he spoke about supporting the economy and increasing employment, and all the other great things that we hope to achieve through our trade deals, but could he be more specific about how this trade deal will help that? I listed in my speech a number of different ways in which I believe that these trade deals are undermining progress towards those goals. I shall be grateful if he will give us a little bit more detail.

[Graham Stuart]

I am happy to do so. Dealing with the issue around human rights, I hear the concerns that hon. Members have voiced, particularly about human rights abuses in Cameroon. [Interruption.] It is a serious topic, and it would be best served if we did not have so much chuntering from the Front Bench by the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), as I am sure everyone would agree.

Our long-standing relationship with Cameroon allows us to have open, candid discussions on key issues. Violence does appear to have decreased in recent months compared with the peak of the conflict, but we continue to call for inclusive dialogue and an end to fighting in the north-west and south-west regions, through direct conversations with the Government of Cameroon and through international bodies, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park suggested we should. We have urged the Cameroonian Government to work with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and have called for impartial investigations to ensure that perpetrators are held to account.

In March, the Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), travelled to Cameroon and met President Biya, Prime Minster Ngute and Foreign Minister Mbella Mbella and made our position clear. We continue to monitor closely the human rights situation with Cameroon—

Agricultural Exports from Australia: Tariffs

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I know how important my hon. Friend’s agriculture sector is in Buckingham, and I can say that the deal we are trying to secure will be very beneficial to exporters of whisky, biscuits, cars, cheese, apparel, ceramics and gin, including gin makers in his constituency such as Foxdenton, Bucks Brothers and Butlers Cross.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

To support its agricultural industry, Australia has the highest rate of deforestation in the OECD and uses 71 hazardous substances that are currently banned in the UK. It is also one of the worst performers in tackling climate change, so how are the UK Government using the offer of zero quota and zero tariff access to persuade Australia to improve performance in this area?

[Greg Hands]

We are the COP26 chairs this year, and we look forward to full Australian participation. The Australian Government are absolutely committed to combating climate change. There may even be something on that in this agreement, which we are negotiating at the moment. In terms of where Australia is overall on our standards, it is worth bearing in mind that it does have high animal welfare standards. It is ranked five out of five by the World Organisation for Animal Health on its evaluation of the performance of veterinary services, and it is worth pointing out that Australian standards are high, but I repeat that there will be no compromise and no change as a result of this free trade agreement to our own food standards.

Trade Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

I would like start by commending the Department for International Trade for its fantastic work in continuing to secure free trade agreements around the world. Last week, I hosted a webinar on exporting, in partnership with the Department and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan). It was inspiring to hear of the opportunities our small and medium-sized businesses were taking in boosting skills and jobs in our local areas. With about 6.5 million UK jobs supported by UK exports, it is vital that we continue to support and encourage businesses to export, which will help drive a jobs-led recovery from the covid-19 pandemic.

The Bill updates and builds on our existing continuity trading relationship, which formed part of our membership with the EU. I particularly welcome the WTO’s agreement on Government procurement, which will secure access for UK businesses to overseas procurement opportunities worth £1.3 trillion a year. I also welcome the new trade remedies authority, which will enable Britain to secure the benefits of freedom while providing a safety net for domestic industries.

This country leads the way in making the case for human rights, as proven by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s statement this afternoon, and we have not embraced an independent trading policy to do otherwise. Our trading policy must therefore reflect our human rights priorities in a way that is both practical and coherent with our constitution. First, in order to work effectively, the determination of matters of genocide needs to be practical and follow established methods. As a result, it is perfectly reasonable for the judgment to rest with the competent courts, which include domestic criminal courts and relevant international courts, rather than Governments or non-judicial bodies. We all support the objective of upholding human rights; it is a question of how we best achieve that in practice.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) has already stated, the Government have listened and given an assurance that Parliament and Select Committee Chairs will be part of the process to establish new joint committees or sub-committees or to bring in the expertise of former members of the judiciary. Amendments proposed by the other place, however, would apply a wrecking ball and enable the High Court to fundamentally challenge the royal prerogative. In my view, such a move would undermine our confidence in Parliament.

Brexit was about strengthening the voice that Parliament has. This Bill and the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) give a clear role for Parliament to act quickly and decisively in human rights situations, while also seizing the new global opportunities ahead.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

As the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade pointed out earlier, we have had many debates in this place about the Trade Bill, but today there is only one question before us: should the UK have trade deals or agreements with countries that practise genocide on their own people? It seems very clear to me and my fellow Liberal Democrat Members that we need to grab this opportunity to make that very clear statement. We welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement earlier today about the Magnitsky sanctions, but we absolutely must follow that up and make it so clear in everything we do that we do not tolerate genocide in any shape or form.

The Liberal Democrats therefore remain unflinching in our support of Lord Alton’s amendment. We welcome the fact that their lordships have once again returned the Bill to the Commons with this amendment. I urge the Government to listen to all the cross-party voices on this issue and allow the amendment to stand. Time is short, so I will not rehearse all the reasons why this genocide amendment is so necessary in combating the actions of regimes against their own people, such as we are currently seeing against the Uyghurs in China at this very moment.

It continues to baffle me that this Government, which fought so hard for the rights of the UK to agree its own trade deals, have so little to say about how they plan to use that power. They have resisted calls from across the House to use the power of our trade deals to demand environmental, social or human rights improvements from our trading partners. How can we ensure that our goods and services will not be cheaply traded away if the Government will not even allow this amendment? The Government’s objections to the original amendment have been ably addressed by their lordships, and we will be voting this evening for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani).

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

I would have no hesitation in voting against a trade deal with a state that commits genocide, nor would I have any hesitation in voting against a trade deal with a state whose oppressive behaviour and conduct fell short of the legal definition of genocide. But either way, those are political decisions and should be taken here; therefore, we need a political process to deal with those.

That is why, despite the changes, there still remain difficulties with the latest iteration of this Bill to come back from their lordships. The problem is given away by the language, which was recognised by the shadow Secretary of State when she referred to a finding by our country’s most experienced judges. That is the rub of the wording of the amendment. When it talks about a “Parliamentary Judicial Committee” and “a preliminary determination”, later defined as “a public finding”, that is the language of courts rather than of Parliaments.

The tension is further revealed by the provisions specifying the procedure by which judges may be appointed to the parliamentary judicial committee. That is constitutionally inaccurate, never mind anything else, because once former members of the judiciary sit in the other place, they sit there as former members, no longer as judges. They have ceased their judicial function. To pass this amendment with its current wording would be constitutionally illiterate. Although the expertise of the former members of the judiciary is very great and very welcome, it is surely objectionable in principle to create a parliamentary Committee on which only one class Member of either House can serve by reference purely to their previous occupation.

Secondly, it seems to me undesirable that, by statute, we should seek to circumscribe so closely both the membership of a Committee of either House or the proceedings by which such a Committee operates, which normally should be a matter for Standing Orders. I would have thought that that was much the better way to go.

Trade Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Katherine Fletcher]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct on that. Having been part of the Bill Committee in the past weeks, I have had the opportunity to hear at length the arguments made on this Bill and on today’s amendments. I have listened hard to the details and drawn my own judgments. The advocacy for new amendments is strong and their proponents on the Opposition Benches articulate them well. They express fears that, at first glance, seem reasonable, but they are fears and not realities. I worry that Opposition Members are seeking to conflate what is actually in the Bill with fears about what could be in the Bill and wider conversations about trade. I know I am relatively new to this House, but that does not make sense to me. So what are the actualités of this piece? There is much noise about Parliament voting on future trade deals—we can do that, more so than is the case in other countries such as Australia and New Zealand. The CRAG process allows us to vote on trade deals and if we change our own law on trade, we will vote on that in this place too.

In reference to new clause 4, I must draw on my business background. As anyone who has negotiated any type of deal before knows, if you are at a table and have to say, “I agree but I have to get 650 other people to agree”, it rather ties your hands in the negotiation. Let us trust our elected Government to act in the best interests of global Britain, and as hon. Friends have mentioned, trust those on these Back Benches to hold them to account. Should it be needed, there is still a backstop. If we, as a Parliament, need to block a trade deal after negotiation, we can. If it changes our laws, it will need a vote in this place, and FTAs cannot, by their nature, unilaterally change UK law. This is similar to Canada’s system, and it is forging on with trade deals and doing all right.

I have had much correspondence from the people of South Ribble raising concerns about our farmers and their wonderful, quality produce. People say, “You need to reassure constituents. There is concern that if a clear and explicit Government commitment to uphold food standards is not included in the Trade Bill, existing food law, including retained law, could easily be changed.” If I were in their shoes listening to that, I would be worried too. Let me put their fears to rest. We will not remove the UK’s current food standards. For example, hormones and chlorine in food are banned now and will remain banned—full stop. The current standards are in EU law and will be rolled over when we leave the transition period. We have promised to keep import standards in place, and we will. For those concerned about having a say, should they ever be changed, that will be voted on here in the UK Parliament.

If we put food standards rules into this Bill and ask those overseas to adhere to them, then we are asking those abroad to abide by our law. That is something we would not and do not accept from other countries, and our friends abroad will almost certainly say, “No thanks. That will put a restriction on trade that will hurt us—let’s not.” To put it another way, putting food standards regulation into a Bill rolling EU law into UK law is a bit like putting a frock on a frog: it will look more than a bit out of place down at the negotiating pond, and people will be disappointed when they kiss it and it does not turn out to be a protectionist princess. There is a right place to protect the UK’s food standards when products are imported, and we will, but it is not this Bill.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), as I recall I did when she made her maiden speech. I rise to speak in support of new clause 4 tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who I know is scheduled to speak immediately after me and will doubtless give a detailed account of the reasons for it. In anticipation of that, I wish to set out why the Liberal Democrats support it.

From 1 January 2021, the UK will be setting out on its own for the first time in nearly 40 years in developing its own independent trade policy and negotiating its own trade agreements. The implications of this step on everyday life in the UK are huge, and possibly not yet fully appreciated. Trade negotiations are complex and delicate. Securing access to international markets for one sector may mean conceding international access to our domestic markets for another. Securing preferential treatment on tariffs for some of our goods may mean relaxing import controls on something else.

We have a complex economy currently disrupted by the need to beat the coronavirus, and on the verge of major change as we transition away from carbon-emitting activity. Technological change offers both threat and opportunity. We must also consider that our economy is imperfect in its distribution of wealth and opportunity, and look for ways to address this challenge. Increasingly, the UK is being called on to stand up for the defence of fundamental human rights and liberal democracy and use the powers at its disposal to effect change internationally. Our trade policy and agreements touch on all those urgent challenges. How can we best leverage our economic advantages to deliver current and future prosperity for UK citizens and influence peaceful progress abroad?

To determine that those decisions are best made behind closed doors without consultation or discussion is an assault on our very idea of what Parliament is for. We need to balance all the competing pressures from different economic sectors and geographical regions, fully considering the impact on different groups of workers, and determine whether we prioritise climate commitments over economic growth. How can that be done effectively without recourse to Parliament? The British people deserve to have their interests properly represented when these questions are being asked and for the answers given by Ministers to be put on the public record and judged accordingly.

I also speak in support of new clause 9 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and supported by the Liberal Democrats because we recognise the urgency of taking action against the very real threat of climate change. It is essential that we enshrine that urgency in our trade legislation, so that negotiating partners know, before the first papers are exchanged, that they must comply with our environmental goals. Our economy is transitioning away from carbon emissions, in accordance with the democratic mandate to achieve net zero carbon by 2050, and that progress must be underpinned in every trade agreement we negotiate. Our commitment to net zero cannot be traded away in pursuit of other goals.

The Liberal Democrats have also tabled amendments that relate to dispute resolution and human rights. Dispute resolution is fundamental to ensuring that democratic decision-making that relates to the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, or regulation of food standards, cannot be undermined by law suits from foreign corporations. At this stage, the UK Government should rule out any use of investor-state dispute settlement procedures from UK trade deals, to safeguard our ability to determine our own regulatory environment, without the threat of sanction from foreign investors. That is fundamental to ensuring that our NHS remains free at the point of use for all UK citizens, and that we set our own standards on animal welfare and food quality.

Earlier I referred to the UK’s powers to effect change internationally, and to how we can use our trade agreements as leverage. We have been forcefully reminded of our need to use those powers to influence foreign partners to respect human rights, thanks to recent events in Hong Kong and China. It would send a powerful message to the Chinese regime, and to others around the world who hope to trade with us, if we enshrined in law our commitment to upholding human rights as a non-negotiable element of our trade deals. That message will be compelling only if we lead by example, and that example starts with parliamentary oversight of negotiating mandates and trade deals. I implore colleagues to support new clause 4 this evening.

[Mr Djanogly]

I speak to the new clauses tabled in my name, and those of others, concerning the scrutiny of free trade agreements. Simply put, today the House must address the question of whether, post Brexit, the UK will have less scrutiny of free trade agreements than we had before Brexit. That is the current Government proposal, which I suggest flies in the face of the claim that we leave the EU to take back control. The Government have split FTAs into two categories. First, and in the Bill, are all trade agreements that the EU signed with third countries before Brexit, which the Government wish to roll over to become agreements with the UK. Secondly, and not in the Bill, there are FTAs with any other countries, such as the US.

New clause 4 suggests a new scrutiny process for all FTAs. It will still be the Executive that negotiate FTAs, but Parliament would get a yes/no vote on the negotiating objectives and, importantly, on the final draft agreement, as happens in the US and Japan. Not only has such a provision not ended up in the Bill, but the Government’s position has seemingly reverted to us having less scrutiny than we had as a member of the EU. For the past 40 years, the EU has negotiated our trade deals, and as part of the EU scrutiny process, a yes/no vote would be taken by the EU Parliament on the draft FTA, prior to signature.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession)

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend make an extremely important point. One benefit of CPTPP is that it is a free-trade, high-standards arrangement with countries that follow the rules. We want to create alliances with like-minded allies across the world, and ensure that that is the way the world trade system operates. It is also important to diversify our trade, so that we are not dependent on single countries or regions for imports, or for where we export to. We must have options as a country, and be able to work with those who share our values.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Many people in my party have long had their suspicions about the extent of the Government’s plans after Brexit, but I do not think that any of us, even in our wildest dreams, imagined that leaving Europe meant relocating to the Pacific. Given that the Government have such limited time and bandwidth while dealing with the pandemic, is this the right time to be entering into negotiations to join a partnership that currently represents just 8% of our exports? We are still a long way from agreeing a trade partnership with the EU, which represents 45% of our exports. What are the Government’s priorities?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As we seek to recover from coronavirus, it is incredibly important that we protect and expand our exports, which represent 31% of the UK economy and include vital industries such as the steel industry, the car industry and the food and drink industry. We must find new markets for those exports and link to fast-growing parts of the world. We must also protect against protectionism. One of the benefits of signing free trade agreements is avoiding tariffs on our goods and services, and CPTPP represents 13% of the global economy—16% if we add the UK—and includes fast-growing parts of the world. At a time when we are seeking to revive the economy, this is exactly the type of agreement we should be joining. In parallel, of course, we are negotiating with the EU to secure a good agreement with it. It is not an either/or; we need to be trading with all the world.

Trade Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

The Liberal Democrats will be voting against the Second Reading of the Trade Bill. It denies the British people the same rights that they enjoyed as members of the European Union, including the right to scrutinise and properly debate the terms on which we will trade with the rest of the world. When we were represented by Members of the European Parliament, we enjoyed that right. Our representatives were required to vote on all draft trade deals before they could be ratified. There is not enough time today to go over the old debate on whether or not the UK is better off as part of a single trading bloc—Members will surely be in no doubt about my own views on that issue—but it is inconsistent to have secured the right for the UK to negotiate its own trade deals, only to promptly shut the British people out of all discussions about them.

What would our constituents wish us to prioritise if they were allowed a say? They would want to know that goods coming into our country were produced to the same quality standards as the domestically produced goods they will compete with; that any food coming from abroad was farmed with sufficient regard to animal welfare; and that consumers were protected from shoddy or unsafe goods. They would want to know that the workers producing those goods in other countries had the same rights as UK workers, and to know that cheaper prices for imported goods were not achieved at the cost of employee welfare. They would also want to resist a race to the bottom by business owners who argue that maintaining employment standards in this country makes them uncompetitive. They would want to know that the UK and our international trade partners were pushing forward towards the goal of achieving net zero carbon, and that we could not accept goods into our domestic market that were produced with environmental standards that where any lower than those of goods produced here.

The Government wish to preserve the Union, but we know that they are happy for part of the United Kingdom to trade under different terms from the other nations to meet their political objectives. What else will this Government trade away if they are left unscrutinised? Our counterparts in trade negotiations will have to have their deals endorsed by their legislatures. The US deal will need to be ratified by Congress. Its negotiators will know what will and will not get through Congress, and they will use that as a negotiating position. We will not have the same negotiating strength, as our counterparts will know that we do not have to defer to Parliament. It will be much easier for the UK to yield than it will be for the US, and how tempting will that be, if the Government prize a quick political win over uninteresting detail that nobody can scrutinise?

The International Trade Secretary is surely aware that the significance of tariff barriers is declining as the significance of non-tariff barriers increases. Those non-tariff barriers can be complex and shifting and require difficult choices. Do we prioritise cheaper goods over the fight against climate change? Do we open up foreign markets to our exports at the risk of bolstering a regime that does not respect human rights? These questions should be debated on the Floor of the House so that the public have a full understanding of the decisions that are being made on their behalf.

This country is a very different place from the one that last negotiated its own trade agreements. We have a far wider range of consumer goods available to us, and many of us have sufficient income to be able to make discerning choices about which ones we will purchase. We are better informed than we ever were, and we use that information to guide our buying choices. Consumers are using their buying power to demand and achieve significant improvements in the ethical and environmental production of the goods they purchase. Why should the British people not being able to influence how that same power is exercised on their behalf on a national basis in the global marketplace?

To oppose the Bill is not to endorse protectionism, as some Members on the Government Benches have implied. It is simply to state that the Bill does not seek to realise fully all the opportunities that building our own trade policy represents. It robs the British people of rights they have enjoyed for 50 years and it weakens our negotiating position on future trade deals.