Trade Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree. I put the question back to my hon. Friend, as I have to other hon. Friends. If, on balance, the courts decide—we have faith in our courts—that this is likely to be genocide, I simply ask why would we be doing a trade deal with a country that is guilty of genocide. We may not wish to disagree, but the power still remains. The pedantic point put forward by the Government was that it was all about loss of power. I say that that is simply not the case. It would certainly not be in our amendment, because it is very specific that the Government have to do that.

On the vexatious claims point, the High Court is quite capable of dismissing anything on that level. By the way, this is the highest bar that can be set for any accusation. To try to wipe out an ethnic group is the No. 1 crime in the world. The High Court knows that and would dismiss anything that was vexatious. There would be no point in doing otherwise—that would demean it and wreck its reputation.

The Government say that the amendment, being limited to genocide, is practically unenforceable. Well, maybe that is true, in which case we need to look again at the UN charter, but the reality is that right now this is unenforceable—nobody out there can bring a charge of genocide, because they are blocked. We come back to the same point: we argue about genocide, and the Government say they do not want to do deals with people who commit genocide. I have huge admiration for my right hon. Friend the Minister. We have worked very closely together on many things. However, I noted his language when it came to accusations of the sale of the NHS. He said, “Not and never will be sold.” When it came to China and a trade deal it was, “No plans to do one yet.” We can be emphatic from the Dispatch Box when we want to be. We can make absolute statements when we want to, but when we do not—I have been in Government—we simply do not. That tells us everything we need to know. The Government need to have that check on them.

I conclude by saying that the Government cannot have it both ways. If they say it is for the courts, then the question is which court and the amendment says that. Overall, I have to say that the amendment is not anti-China, but it is anti-genocide. We need now to stand tall. We left the European Union because we did not want to accept judgments from a court over which we said we did not have power. We did not come away because we disliked our courts. I think we have the best courts in the world, and I think they can make this judgment. My question, therefore, is this: what is it about? Why did we leave? So that we would stand tall and have a global vision about the morality of what we do. I say to my colleagues and to those on the Front Bench that tonight is about more than just pettifogging. Tonight is all about shining a light of hope to all those out there who have failed to get their day in court and to be treated properly. If this country does not stand up for that, then I want to know what would it ever stand up for again. I urge my colleagues to vote to keep Lords amendment 3 in the Bill.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) [V]]

If I may start by making some general observations, we have previously agreed with the Secretary of State for International Trade about the necessity of keeping trade open, recognising the importance of supply chains and how important it is that we stand against protectionism. I am happy to reiterate all of that today. Indeed, we all should, because we need to combat the three main threats to trade. The first, self-evidently, is the covid crisis, which the World Health Organisation suggests could lead to a massive fall in global trade. The second is the impact of Brexit, and thirdly, we must address the systemic problem of the continued implementation of new trade restriction measures, and the continuation of existing ones. For example, tariffs valued at somewhere north of $1.6 trillion are in force around the world. I am not confident that any of those problems will be resolved any time soon, and the Bill does not address any of those matters directly. It is presented mainly as trying to facilitate the roll-over of existing deals, and maintaining trade that the UK has with third countries, which is vital.

The Bill does a number of other things, as the Minister set out. It creates procurement obligations arising from membership of the agreement on Government procurement. It creates the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and gives power to HMRC to collect and share data. As I have said, however, it is not without its problems, as evidenced by the large number of amendments that have come from the other place, which cover a large number of areas. I will address those issues shortly—and hopefully briefly.

As the Scottish National party has made clear during the passage of the Bill, a number of the problems relate to the impact on the devolved Administrations and consent, the role and powers of any scrutinising Committee, parliamentary scrutiny and approval, international standards and agreements, food and animal welfare issues, concerns about the NHS and, as we have just heard, concerns about human rights in trading partner countries. The amendments from the other place deal with a number of those issues.

Let me summarise the SNP’s attitude to the main amendments. Lords amendment 1 seeks to enshrine parliamentary approval of trade agreements. That is one of the fundamental problems with the Bill as it stands. The absence of meaningful parliamentary scrutiny and a parliamentary vote on significant changes or modifications, or in future on new trade deals that may be envisaged by the Government, is a massive problem. Modern democracies need full scrutiny of trade agreements, from the scope of the negotiating mandate, right through to implementation. Without amendment 1, the CRaG provisions, which are prayed in aid by the Government, amount to little more than a “take it or leave it” choice at the end of the negotiations, without the ability to amend. That is inadequate.

Lords amendment 1 also requires the UK Government to consult the devolved nations. That is not consent, but it is progress of a sort.

Lords amendment 2 seeks compliance with international obligations. We raised that matter previously, and new clause 7 on Report was designed to do a number of things. First, it was intended to affirm the UK’s rights and obligations under the sanitary and phytosanitary measures in annex 1A of the WTO agreement. The amendment focuses mainly on human rights, but it also states that before publishing trade objectives, the Government must conduct a risk assessment to consider whether the agreement would comply with the UK’s international treaties and other obligations. It seems eminently sensible to ensure that any free trade agreement complies with international obligations, whether human rights obligations or otherwise.

Lords amendment 3 deals with genocide, and as the Minister knows, there has been a great deal of support for such a measure. There are some serious concerns about the amendment as it stands, not least in allowing the English High Court to determine what is and what is not genocide, but the principle of revoking a trade deal with a state committing such heinous crimes is beyond reproach.

Lords amendment 4 covers IT and related activities in the NHS. I have previously argued that there should be no use of negative listings, because such clauses require that all industries are liberalised in trade agreements unless there are specific carve-outs, and it is not always easy to define which services count as, for example, health services. Digital services may be irrelevant to health, but NHS data management and GP appointment systems are increasingly digitised. There should be no standstill or ratchet clauses, because those provisions would mean that after a trade deal was signed, parties would not be able to reduce the level of liberalisation beyond what it was at the point of signature. Lords amendment 4 explicitly excludes the use of such negative listing and ratchet clauses and rules out the use of ISDS-type provisions for public services, including health, which would be extremely popular with the public.

Lords amendment 5 addresses ratification, including the requirement for a debate. I have previously asked whether, if it was the intention of the Government to provide sensitive information to a scrutiny Committee, that would be the Select Committee on International Trade, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). I also asked whether any papers provided would be publishable or restricted. Lords amendment 5 would force the Government to publish an analysis, which would presumably ensure that such information was more widely available. The amendment would also ensure that a debate was held, on the recommendation of such a Committee. That is a very sensible measure indeed.

Lords amendment 6 deals with standards, including food and animal welfare standards, which are of massive concern to the public. As I said on Report, we know that trade deals can put pressure on food standards and lead to the importation of low-standard food. For example, the previous US Administration made it clear that they wanted the UK to lower its food and animal welfare standards. We suggested a ban on the importation of food that was produced to standards lower than those in the UK. Lords amendment 6 is clear that a Minister of the Crown should ensure

“as far as possible that a future trade agreement is consistent with United Kingdom levels of statutory protection regarding, among other things—

(a) human, animal or plant life or health;

(b) animal welfare;

(c) the environment;

(d) food safety, quality, hygiene and traceability;”

and so on. That is an eminently sensible thing to do. The amendment also states that should a Minister seek to change standards, they would have to “seek the consent” of the devolved nations in advance. That is absolutely the right way to proceed.

Lords amendment 7 seeks additional protection for children online, ensuring that legislation is consistent with international treaties. Lords amendment 13, which I understand the Government are minded to accept, addresses the relationship with the devolved Administrations, ensuring that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can provide information to the devolved Administrations so that they can fulfil their obligations in terms of trade.

A comprehensive trade Bill is vital, but it has to be right. This Bill has been subject to dozens of amendments in the other place, many with widescale public support. There is still a great deal of work to be done and compromises to be made before this Bill is acceptable.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I want to say at the outset that I completely agree with the need to set ethical frameworks in all our overseas dealings, including trade. In so far as these amendments deal with China, I also completely agree that the treatment of the Uyghurs is a violation of historic proportions that should be condemned whether or not it meets the very high legal test of genocide. We should be willing to take action when we think that behaviour does not meet that very high international bar.

However, I am against these specific Lords amendments for four reasons. First, I think trade policy should be conducted via the elected Government through Parliament. I, along with many Conservative Members, voted to leave the European Union to take back control. I do not want to take back control from unelected judges in Europe and give more power to judges in the United Kingdom, however high the esteem in which they are held. I want the decisions about the ethical nature of our policy to be decided in Parliament, by elected parliamentarians. I agree with many of the elements that are being discussed here. I do not want to see more powers coming back from Europe, only for them to be exercised by royal prerogative; I want to see them exercised by the democratic House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to Scotland to Scottish National party spokesperson Stewart Hosie with the first of two questions.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) [V]]

The Secretary of State was copied in to a letter to the Business Secretary from Vicky Leigh-Pearson, the sales director at John Ross Jr, Aberdeen, salmon producers and exporters. It described in excoriating detail the “barrage of useless information” on Brexit, which added no value or clarity for such food and drink exporting businesses. Would it not be better to fix the problems at the UK-EU border, where real exports take place, rather than make vague promises about future promotional campaigns?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I observe that the hon. Gentleman did not support a deal, so effectively he wanted no deal for the people of the United Kingdom. I think it is a bit rich of him to raise issues when no deal would have been very, very tricky for the exporters he is talking about. Given that £200 million was given to the Scottish Government to prepare to minimise disruption, I suggest he takes up the issue with Nicola Sturgeon to see how that money has been spent to help Scottish exporters.

[Stewart Hosie]

That was possibly the worst case of deflection I have ever seen, even from a Tory. The Brexit advice on offer to businesses such as John Ross Jr, which has an exemplary 30-year record in exporting,

“has fallen woefully short when it comes to one of the most important commercial issues of our time.”

Instead of vague promises about future campaigns, pathetic attempts at deflection and playing rather silly politics, would it not be better to fix the problems at the UK-EU border, where real exports happen, to protect real jobs and businesses?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is working very hard with the Brexit business taskforce to make sure that disruption is minimised and businesses are given support. It is perfectly reasonable for me to raise the £200 million that has been given to the Scottish Government and how they are spending it, and the hon. Gentleman’s silence speaks volumes.

Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Stewart Hosie 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.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I will not take the House’s attention for long. Again, I find myself in agreement. The Liberal Democrats have serious reservations about the original Trade Bill, but we recognise that, through no fault of this House, the Bill has to be expedited. We need some form of data protection and for our authorities be able to use the data effectively, so we are prepared not to go along with this Bill, but to accept that we need it and that we need it by 1 January. We are in this situation simply because the negotiations with the European Union have not gone in the way that the Government had assured us they would and because the situation has not been handled by the UK Government as expertly as we might have hoped.

--- Later in debate ---

Removing subsection (7) would limit the information capable of being disclosed to the Cabinet Office and would ultimately impact the Government’s ability to mitigate disruption to the flow of traffic, goods and services at the border. I should stress that the Government take the protection of data held by Departments, public bodies and private companies acting on their behalf extremely seriously. As I have said, the gateway is permissive. It does not mandate that bodies listed in clause 2 must share information. Individual Departments and public bodies will need to be satisfied that data sharing is necessary to support functions relating to trade.

[Stewart Hosie]

If the Minister is right that removing the disapplication would restrict the Government’s ability to collect the data they need, will he tell the Committee what data that is currently protected the Government wish to access or have a hold of that they would not otherwise be able to get?

[Greg Hands]

That is a very reasonable question, but I will stress what I said earlier: it is not possible at this stage to anticipate what specific restrictions may apply to the additional public bodies, otherwise we would have put on the face of the Bill which other public bodies could be added in due course. We have not put those on the face of the Bill, but we have said that it is perfectly possible that, during the conduct of these operations, it will become clear that there is other data out there that would assist the Government in ensuring that trade flows well at the border. We want to ensure that those other bodies could quickly come within scope, through the delegated procedures that we have laid out in legislation, and therefore it would not be appropriate to put a general restriction on those bodies. It is best to rely on the overall restrictions in the legislation to ensure that we have robust data protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I would be delighted to take this opportunity to make the briefest of Third Reading speeches and to return to a theme that has typified this entire debate. Notwithstanding the need to be able to share data or to have the legal basis on which to do so, it is completely wrong to rush this through with potentially hours, or possibly a day or so, before the House rises for recess and barely a fortnight before the full horrors of Brexit come on to the British people and business in this country.

This is a lesson for us all in the future: there must be a better way of dealing with technical matters, even ones that come up urgently, than today’s very short and expedited debate. I hope that, as the Minister said in Committee, the Trade Bill gets its Royal Assent soon enough that the dangers implicit in this—temporary, I hope—legislation with a long sunset clause do not come to fruition.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Christine Jardine]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and your patience, and I ask your advice on a matter that has come to my attention today that is of great importance not only to my constituent, Murray Gray, but to a number of constituents, mostly children, who are currently in receipt of private prescriptions for medicinal cannabis. I have had confirmation today that the Department of Health and Social Care says that those prescriptions will not be permissible after 1 January, so a number of patients will find themselves without medication. I wondered whether there is some way that could be raised as an urgent matter to be discussed by the House, and that we could hear from the Department, before the House rises for recess.

Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

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

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Minister, perfectly reasonably, described the Bill as, in essence, providing the legal basis upon which information can be disclosed and shared between public authorities to ensure that Ministers and those organisations can fulfil their obligations in terms of trade functions. That is perfectly reasonable—nothing wrong with that.

Indeed, the explanatory notes make it very clear that we need such a measure in any event, whether we have a deal—a good deal or a bad deal—or no deal in barely two weeks’ time, so this is absolutely necessary. I share the shadow Minister’s concern that the Trade Bill was not completed in its entirety. It is incomplete, and therefore we have to introduce a measure that may have a very short shelf life indeed.

I have one question on Second Reading, in relation to clause 1. The Minister rightly referred to the devolved Administrations potentially being added to the list of public authorities in clause 2, but clause 1(1)(b) already says that the Revenue may disclose information

“facilitating the exercise by a devolved authority of the authority’s functions relating to trade”.

That is already on the face of the Bill, so it does not need to be added in relation to the Revenue’s ability to disclose.

The Minister will be aware of the Scottish Government’s priorities in this regard. Ivan McKee’s letter to him on 12 August said:

“Our priority is getting timely and comprehensive access to the HMRC’s trade microdata, which sits behind the HMRC’s overseas trade statistics and regional trade statistics covering both exports and imports. This company-level data contains variables, such as: company reference number, date, flow, type, value of trade, quantity of trade, weight, commodity code, country of origin, destination, port of entry, dispatch, etc. These variables will allow the Scottish Government to analyse Scottish trade over time, sector, product and destination at a more detailed level than is currently published by the HMRC.”

That is a statement of fact, but given that clause 1(1) permits HMRC to disclose information connected to a devolved Administration to allow them to fulfil their obligations in relation to trade, can I just check with the Minister—I am sure this is correct, but I would be happy to have it on record—that this is not simply permissive, but that it is actually the Government’s intention to provide the data from the Revenue, as provided for by the Bill, to allow the Scottish Government to do accurate work in relation to their trade functions? I am sure that is the case, but it would be very helpful to have it on the record.

In case the Minister thinks he is going to get off with just that, it is worth pointing out that the letter of 12 August also says:

“That does not mean we support the UK Government’s proposed trade policy more generally.”

In terms of our demand for more parliamentary scrutiny, and so on, that is perfectly reasonable.

The Minister described the expedited timetable for this Bill, and my goodness, it is seriously expedited—just one day. Let me just gently say to him that, given that the explanatory notes said that we are going to need a measure like this in any event, if we had not wasted time on the pointless, meaningless, futile United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, whose avowed purpose is to break international law and engage in a power grab from devolved Administrations, we might perhaps have had time to have a rather less expedited look at this, including questions on access to and sharing of data, and where and who might have access to it. That might be quite difficult—although frankly, given how few people there are here, not so difficult—in the timetable that we have available.

I have no problem with supporting this Bill on Second Reading. There is one cause of concern that we will raise in Committee—and hopefully the Minister can provide good, strong answers to it—but, as it stands, we certainly have no intention of opposing, at this stage, the legal basis on which to share information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s clarification. It certainly is not my job to outline whatever other legislation may be out there. That would be entirely a matter for the Leader of the House of Commons, who, as we know, made a statement on other legislation earlier this week.

The Member speaking for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, says that he supports the Bill, he supports the continuity agreements, he supports its procurement measures, he supports the trade defences, he supports the data sharing—but he has used every available opportunity to vote against the Bill. He voted against it on Second Reading, he voted against it on Third Reading and it has been voted against at every available opportunity by the official Opposition and by the Scottish National party as well. He says that the concern is that we might kick the Trade Bill into the long grass. No, we very much want the Trade Bill to get Royal Assent as soon as possible. It has very important provisions in it, such as allowing domestic law to remain amendable for continuity trade agreements and the Trade Remedies Authority. It is a very important piece of legislation.

But I did welcome the hon. Member’s commitment to conclude the Trade Bill by the end of January. I see the current Government Deputy Chief Whip here—the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). As a former Government Deputy Chief Whip, I and, as a former Chief Whip of the Opposition, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that that is not entirely in the hands of the Government and that, actually, it is very much as well in the hands of the whole of Parliament. But I will take that as a submission to the usual channels that the official Opposition want the Trade Bill to achieve Royal Assent by 31 January, which is what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said. I will take that as a submission of the Opposition’s intent—good intent—to get it through as quickly as possible.

The hon. Member says he was against CRaG, but I remind him that it was the last Labour Government who introduced CRaG. His boss, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), actually voted for CRaG. He also propagated this deliberate confusion about the oven-ready deal. It is quite clear that that referred to the withdrawal agreement that the House of Commons voted on a year ago. I would just ask him: is he going to support the further trade deal, if there is one, with the European Union? We have heard silence from the official Opposition on that.

To turn to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who also had a very constructive tone, in areas of devolved competence we have been clear. I am repeating the same commitments made at the Dispatch Box during the passage of the Trade Bill, including in the Committee stage of the Trade Bill, that he remarked on at the time and he will remember well. I am making those same commitments today. Overall, we wish to work with the devolved Administrations, particularly in areas of devolved competence, where they have a clear role, such as the management of highways, around ports and other things that relate to facilitating trade.

The hon. Member added, notwithstanding that, that he did not want me to think this was a sudden conversion, with him agreeing with the Government trade policy—definitely not. As I have pointed out from the Dispatch Box a few times, the Scottish National party has not supported a single trade agreement proposed either here or in Brussels.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) that these are not new measures in any sense. They are taken directly from the Trade Bill. The HMRC powers were published in 2017. The further powers were published in July on Report. We are introducing this legislation purely because the Trade Bill probably will not get Royal Assent before 31 December.

I reassure my hon. Friend that there are safeguards on the data. It is data that is already collected. There is no new disclosure of data. Specific named authorities are discretionary to support a Government Minister’s function in relation to trade. In terms of such things as anonymity, the existing restrictions around the General Data Protection Regulation and the UK Data Protection Act 1998 kick in. On taxation, there are already strong measures in place to protect the data of taxpayers. The Bill is clear that data can be shared only where disclosure would support functions related to trade. It could not be disclosed for any other purposes.

My hon. Friend also asked about a private company performing a function on behalf of a public authority. That is possible, but it would operate under the same restrictions and the discretionary powers would apply—GDPR and so on. He asked me for a Dispatch Box commitment on agriculture and food standards. Our commitment is absolute. The commitment that he and I made individually and collectively in our general election manifesto this time a year ago continues as well.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) called for an adjustment period, which I think is a new term for a transition period. She is calling for a transition period from the transition period, which would increase uncertainty. The UK is leaving the single market and the customs union on 1 January, and an indeterminate postponement of that would, by definition, only increase uncertainty.

[Stewart Hosie]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I am going to finish now. The purpose of the Bill is simple: it allows the Government to use data that they already hold, in order to ensure the smooth flow of traffic, goods and people across the UK’s borders at the end of the transition period. The Bill will support better services by permitting data on the flow of international trade to be shared and analysed. The Bill does not create any new powers, but brings forward critical powers that are needed from the end of the transition period to ensure that the Government and public bodies can use the information that they already collect.

We have had a good debate, carried out in an excellent spirit, and I thank all Members for their contributions. My thanks also go to the Government Opposition Whips, of course, who have ensured that the Second Reading has run effectively—particularly under your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I look forward to tasting some of this Meon Valley wine, although I have to say that 9.39 in the morning might feel a little early. Our commitment to promoting British wines is very strong. Among the potential 70 geographical indicators in the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement deal are: English wine, English regional wine, Welsh wine and Welsh regional wine. We are in regular contact with WineGB and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association to help to promote this vital industry.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

After listening to these Whips’ questions, I think I would like some English wine as well, Mr Speaker.

I had a long and detailed discussion with NFU Scotland on Monday. In its words, it is “really worried” about future trade deals. Fundamentally, the UK is a high cost, high food standard regime. It argues that it simply cannot compete with low-cost competition with lower food standards elsewhere. Is it not now time for the Government to change tack, and include chapters on food, animal welfare and standards in trade agreements?

[Greg Hands]

I studied very carefully the hon. Gentleman’s amendment during the passage of the Trade Bill. In many ways, he had an even more extreme amendment than the Labour party in terms of trying to dictate our trade partners’ domestic production standards. That would have killed off a huge amount of our trade with the developing world. He mentions NFU Scotland. I thought I would go directly to the source. I am reading here from The Scottish Farmer, which I recommend he reads. NFU Scotland president, Andrew McCornick, said in The Scottish Farmer only last week, on putting the TAC on a statutory footing:

“This is a huge step forward.”

[Stewart Hosie]

Putting an organisation on a statutory footing is one thing, but protecting food standards is something different. I think the Minister’s answer is what Americans call doubling down on a previous mistake. Let me give an example. UK egg producers simply cannot compete with imported eggs produced where the density of laying hens may be twice that permitted in the United Kingdom. The only way they could do that would be to massively lower food production and animal welfare standards, something we know from the recent Which? survey the public are implacably opposed to. Is it really the Government’s intention to be on the wrong side of food standards, the wrong side of animal welfare, the wrong side of the farming industry and the wrong side of public opinion?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He mentions the Which? survey. I was delighted to be the guest speaker at the launch of the Which? survey, “The National Trade Conversation”, where we discussed many of these aspects. To be absolutely clear to him again, our commitment that there will be no lowering of standards on animal welfare, food safety and the environment is absolute. I urge him again to get with the trade agenda and listen to NFU Scotland, which says it will

“strive to ensure that the best interests of farming, food and the drink and the public continue to be front and centre of any trade deals.”

That is exactly the right approach being taken by NFU Scotland. I urge him and the SNP to get on board with that positive approach for the first time, please.

Continuity Trade Agreements: Parliamentary Scrutiny

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent question. I am aware of his background—I think he worked for five years in Brazil and knows the market extremely well. Mercosur is, of course, a very important partner for the United Kingdom, and there are significant opportunities for British business to do more trade, including with Brazil. Just last week, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire, were pleased to host their first Joint Economic and Trade Committee with Minister Fendt from Brazil. They spoke about success to date in financial services and food and drink sectors. As there is not an EU-Mercosur deal in effect, any future UK-Mercosur deal is not within the scope of this programme.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The problem here is not simply the incomplete deals; it is the process we are following, which is not fit for purpose. MPs have no ability to vote to amend our negotiating mandate. As the Minister said, the Government report voluntarily, normally at the end of a negotiating stage to tell us that everything is great, but with no information about obstacles overcome or new obstacles emerging. Perhaps towards the end of a negotiation, the negotiators go into a tunnel from which no information emerges unless it is leaked to provide leverage, which is profoundly unhelpful. We are then offered a vote on a short take-it-or-leave-it debate—again, with no ability to amend or to reflect or represent constituents or sectoral interests. Finally, we find out, normally from the foreign press, as was the case with Switzerland and Norway, that the deal is not what the Government trumpeted it to be.

I ask the Minister, briefly, what action will he take to expedite the outstanding deals? What action will he take to mitigate the potential tariff and quota costs on some £80 billion of trade? More importantly, what action will the Government take because CRaG is not fit for purpose and we need a new system that allows MPs scrutiny and the ability to amend?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the rather more thoughtful questions than those of the official Opposition. Of course, to be fair to him, he voted against CRaG. In fact, he, I and the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) were all elected in the same year, 2005. He voted against CRaG, which is fair enough, and the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury and I voted for it. I can understand his consistency in being opposed to the process. However, we are confident that it represents a robust way of ratifying trade agreements and of Parliament having its say.

Not only that, but we have added to the CRaG process by publishing a scoping analysis and a likely economic impact assessment in advance of the deal, made written ministerial statements after each round, and then publishing an impact assessment when the deal is finally done which gets sent off to the International Trade Committee and the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee in the other place. We have gone far further than CRaG.

I will also say this about SNP Members. Once again, they are complaining about these deals not being rolled over, but they are all deals that they have either not supported or abstained on. They abstained on EU-Japan. They abstained on EU-Singapore. They are against EU-Canada. They are against EU-South Africa. They are against EU-Korea. In fact, I have gone back 15 years, and I cannot find a single trade deal that the SNP has ever supported or voted for, so it is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to come along today and say that the deals have not been rolled over—none of which he supported in the first place. The SNP is anti-trade, it is hellbent on breaking up our Union and it is against Scotland’s best economic interests.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

Pursuing accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is a Government priority and a key part of our trade negotiations programme. We have engaged with all 11 member countries at both ministerial and official level to discuss UK accession, including the first ever meeting of senior officials between CPTPP members and a non-member on 9 September, and all members have welcome the UK’s interest.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for the update. However, when the non-partisan Centre for Economic Policy Research assessed the United States accession to the original and similar trans-Pacific partnership trade deal, it concluded that wages might rise for the top 10% of earners but fall for everybody else. What assessment has his Department made of the impact of CPTPP accession on income levels in the UK, and what guarantees can he give that worsening income inequality would not be a consequence here?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting question. I have not seen that study on the original TPP, but I will say two things. First, when the UK applies, we will be publishing a scoping assessment—an impact assessment—looking at how the deal will affect the UK economy. Secondly, liberal-minded, like-minded democracies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand have embraced CPTPP with great enthusiasm, which gives me some encouragement in this space.

[Stewart Hosie]

It is just not the UK that is seeking to join CPTPP; Thailand, for example, is actively investigating it. Thailand’s faculty of pharmaceutical sciences has assessed that because of the way CPTPP rules on patents and on market approval for generic drugs that impact on Government procurement and so on work, the costs of drugs would rise. Given the Bangkok Post headline that CPTPP would lead to “soaring” drugs bills, what guarantees can the Minister give that a similar rise in the cost of medicines to the NHS, for the same reasons, would not be the consequence here?

[Greg Hands]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Nothing in any trade deal prevents us from setting domestic pharmaceutical prices, and that would remain true in respect of CPTPP. Let me have a look at why the Scottish National party is questioning the potential to join CPTPP. I have the feeling that the SNP is just not in favour of any trade agreements; I have had a look at CPTPP members, and the SNP was against doing a deal with Canada, against doing a deal with Japan in Brussels and against doing a deal with Singapore. So I feel that whatever intricate, detailed questions he has on CPTPP, he will not support our joining it.

Japan Free Trade Agreement

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am looking forward to visiting Davidstow, which is one of the major cheese exporters from the United Kingdom, this Friday. The answer is that dairy products, such as cheddar from Davidstow, will go down to a zero tariff over time as a result of the agreement. We are protecting new product names, whether it is Cornish pasties or clotted cream. We will also see reductions in tariffs for fantastic products such as beef, also from Cornwall.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State. I recognise that, although this deal shares many similarities with the EU deal, it goes slightly further in a limited number of areas, not least the geographic indicators. It would be interesting, however, to find out just how many the UK pushed for as part of the EU deal. On the vexed issue of cheese, which is barely mentioned, surprisingly, it would appear from the reading today that all UK manufacturers can do is fulfil unused EU quotas. I welcome what she has said on data, and what has been described as the digital trade chapter is real progress; however, she will want to confirm that, even with that, if all goes according to plan in GDP terms this deal will be worth less than one tenth of 1% of UK GDP—barely denting the losses anticipated from Brexit.

The elephant in the room is the UK’s stated intention to breach international law and to break legally binding treaties. That is important because the Japan deal is primarily significant in paving the way for CPTPP accession. We know the attitude of the United States—that there will be no deal if the UK breaches international law—and the approach of many of our potential CPTPP partners is very similar. Australia, for example, has demonstrated consistent support for a far-reaching system of international law, and has made a valuable contribution towards realising that. It is a country committed to a rules-based international system. This is all about trust, so would it not have been better for winning the big prize of CPTPP accession if the Secretary of State had stood up and announced the withdrawal of the internal market Bill, rather than boasting about very small gains in this Japan deal?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Only the SNP could say that £15 billion of extra trade is insignificant, but this Japan deal is not just important economically in itself; it is important, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, for accession to TPP, a trade area worth £110 billion. That is vital. This is a step forward. One of the key things we have secured is strong agreement from the Japanese to help us accede to TPP.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is also pleased by the extra protection we have secured for Scotch whisky. There have been issues in Japan, and the Japanese Government have agreed to work with us and the industry on the development of enforcement mechanisms for lot codes on wines and spirits, meaning that Scotch whisky will be even better protected in the Japan market.

The hon. Gentleman talked about cheese. The vast majority of the cheese we export is not subject to quotas. Thanks to this deal, as I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), the tariffs on our cheese will go down to zero over time, which will be of huge benefit to Scottish cheddar producers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) is a huge champion of Scottish farming and the Scotch whisky industry, and I am working extremely closely with him. I am also working very closely with NFU Scotland, and it is involved in the Trade and Agriculture Commission. The fundamental principle of our trade policy is that we will not allow our fantastic farmers, whether in Scotland, Wales, Wales or Northern Ireland, and their great produce to be undermined. What we want them to be doing is exporting more around the world.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

During the passage of the Trade Bill, farmers via the NFU and others, including doctors via the British Medical Association, expressed deep concerns that food standards in future trade deals could be under threat, allowing in, for example, vegetables from the US, where 72 chemicals are allowed that are currently banned in the UK. Given that the Government refused to legislate in the Trade Bill to stop the lowering of standards, how will the Secretary of State respond in her engagement with farmers to ensure that that will not happen in future?

[Elizabeth Truss]

In the EU withdrawal Act, all the import standards that we had as part of the EU have been transposed into UK law. Those import standards remain, and we will not be negotiating them away in any trade agreement. Furthermore, we have the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which is specifically involving organisations such as NFU Scotland, to ensure that British farmers get a fair deal and British consumers have products that they can have confidence in.

[Stewart Hosie]

All that answer confirms is that there are no legislative protections in the Trade Bill and that MPs will have no say in any future trade deal except for potentially a “take it or leave it” choice after the negotiations are concluded. Given that Which? tells us that 95% of the public want to maintain current food standards, why do this Government continue to rule out real legislative protections in a trade Bill that would accord with the views of our farmers, our doctors and the general public?

[Elizabeth Truss]

These standards, such as the ban on chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, are already in UK law as part of the EU withdrawal Act. I have been explicit: it is not a matter for trade policy; it is a matter for our domestic law what standards we have in this country, and we are not trading it away, so it should not be part of any trade Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) speaks from a sedentary position. I do not think that it is the Government’s job to legislate twice for things that are already in legislation.

Trade Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. In case the House is not already aware, after the next speaker, we will have a time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches, which, of course, does not apply to Mr Stewart Hosie.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

There are four significant flaws with this piece of legislation: the absence of devolved consent, real protections for the NHS, the preservation of food standards and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that our amendment 10 and new clauses 7 and 8 deal with the first three, and that new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), deals with the final issue.

I wish to speak to amendment 10 and new clauses 7 and 8, which are in my name, and I will start, slightly in reverse order, with amendment 10. It relates to the powers of the devolved Administrations, or as I said in Committee,

“more accurately, the ability of the UK Government to make regulations under subsection (1), which makes provisions within devolved competencies, without the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers or a Northern Irish devolved authority”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 237.]—

granting consent. It strikes me as fundamental that if we are to genuinely respect the devolved settlement in the UK, Ministers must self-evidently gain the consent of the devolved Administrations before making changes to regulations that directly affect them, possibly in a negative way, or in a way that runs counter to those Governments’ policy objectives.

I am aware that in the previous Trade Bill, under consideration between 2017 and 2019, there was a problematic provision for regulation-making powers to be available to the UK Government, but the good news is that those provisions have been removed from this Trade Bill. It is the case, however, that there remains no statutory obligation for the UK Government to even consult, let alone seek the consent of, Scottish Ministers before exercising the powers in this Bill in devolved areas.

I know that the Minister has said that these powers would not normally be used without seeking consent, and his predecessor did offer a number of a non-legislative commitments to the Scottish Trade Minister Ivan McKee in March. I am genuinely pleased that the Minister, during the Bill Committee, committed to honouring those non-legislative commitments. He said:

“I restate the commitments made by my right hon. Friend, when he was a Minister, in his March letter to the Scottish Minister Ivan McKee”,

and that is genuinely very welcome. However, he went on to say, in opposing what was then amendment 8 and similar Labour new clauses that dealt with the same issues:

“In short, we are already delivering the engagement envisaged by proposed new clause, and we have achieved that while continuing to observe the important constitutional principles enshrined in the devolution settlements.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 240-241.]

I disagree. Giving the UK Government the ability to directly effect devolved powers without the statutory requirement to even seek consent is not observing the devolved settlement.

[Jim Shannon]

Our trading ability is something that concerns each and every one of us across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to support new clause 4, which would give the authority to the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament, and further, would mean that proposals came to the Floor of the House for ratification? Surely supporting new clause 4 would be a step to making that happen.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am more than happy to support new clause 4, not least because I have signed it, but it is a slightly different thing.  Ensuring parliamentary scrutiny, about which I shall say a little more later, is important, but it is different from the seeking of consent from those Administrations whose policy direction may be affected by a UK Government decision.

When we debated the identical new clause in Committee, the Minister went on to say that

“this proposed new clause would give the devolved Administrations a statutory role in the reserved area of international trade negotiations, which would be constitutionally inappropriate.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 241.]

He was partly right, in that it would give the devolved Administrations a statutory role, but only in so far as the provisions of a trade deal affected devolved competences. That is not constitutionally inappropriate; it is a matter of good administration and respect.

The Minister’s key argument against what was proposed was that it was not “practical”. He said:

“It would lock us and the”—

devolved Administrations—

“into prescribed ways of working under the existing intergovernmental memorandum of understanding, a document last updated in 2013.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 241.]

Well, that may be an argument for revisiting the MOU, and it might also be an argument to say that the Government should adhere to the terms of the MOU under any circumstances, but it is a strange argument for opposing this amendment. Surely it is better to base negotiations on an agreed framework, or better still an agreed statutory framework, rather than to leave them to chance, make up the rules on the hoof and give an impression of UK Government acting in an arbitrary way.

The Minister’s key argument was as follows:

“As parts of these agreements touch on devolved matters, this legislation will create concurrent powers. We have sought to put in place concurrent powers to provide greater flexibility in how transitional agreements are implemented”.

So far so good; however, he went on to say:

“This approach permits greater administrative efficiency, reducing the volume of legislation brought through the UK Parliament and through the devolved legislatures.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 241.]

It cannot be right that the UK Government intend to legislate, or can legislate, in areas of devolved competence for the sake of administrative efficiency. There are far bigger and wider principles at stake than that.

Let me turn to new clause 7, tabled in my name. We know that trade deals can put pressure on food standards and lead to the importation of low-standard food. For example, the US Administration has made it clear that they want the UK to lower its food and animal welfare standards. The new clause includes a ban on the importation of food that is produced to standards lower than that in the UK. We know that the US and other countries have far lower animal welfare standards and adopt practices—including chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef and the use of various pesticides and GM crops—that are illegal in the UK for health and environmental reasons. None of that is a great surprise to anyone in the House. We believe that the quality of Scotland’s food and drink produce and, indeed, of food and drink produced elsewhere in the UK, and the related standards, are essential to the maintenance of our established international reputation in those areas.

[Steve Brine]

I wonder whether the people in Scotland, like the people in England and in my constituency in Winchester, might not be way ahead of the politicians. Ultimately, will not the consumer decide? Just recently, we heard Waitrose make it clear that it would not be selling any imported product that was produced to a lower standard than we currently enjoy in this country, with its new boss citing chlorine-washed chicken. I just wonder whether the public might be ahead of us on this already.

[Stewart Hosie]

I want to be careful in how I answer that. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that perhaps those who can afford to shop in Waitrose—the Minister boasted in Committee that he was Waitrose fan—have a choice; perhaps somebody who is counting every penny and does not have access to anything other than the cheapest food is not in the position to make the same choice.

In effect, new clause 7 would do two things: it would affirm the UK’s rights and obligations under the SPS agreement—that is, the application of the sanitary and phytosanitary measures in annex 1A of the WTO agreement; and it would prohibit the import of food into the UK if standards in the exporting country were lower than those in force in the UK. I do not think there is anything contentious about that.

It is not just campaign groups like the Trade Justice Movement that back this. It is not just Scottish Land and Estates and the National Farmers Union that back measures like this one. The British Medical Association has weighed in, saying:

“The Bill presents an opportunity for the UK to present itself as a global leader on standards on food imports for the benefit of human, animal and plant health, and the environment. To fulfil this opportunity, it is vital that our current high standards are upheld and protected in any trade deals.”

It suggests that new clauses 7 and 11 should be backed in order to achieve that.

It is also necessary to have this on the face of the Bill because the Government’s approach to protecting food standards is slightly confused. In Committee, the Minister said:

“This Bill is about…continuity… Imports under continuity agreements must continue to comply with our existing import standards.”

I welcomed that. However, he added:

“Decisions on those standards are a matter for the UK and will be made separately from any trade agreements.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 305-6.]

There is the point of concern, right there. The UK could, if it wished, lower standards, opening the door to all sorts of imports. Let us make sure that that is not possible, at least in the roll-over arrangements, by including the UK’s obligations under the WTO phytosanitary agreement in the Bill. That is important because although the purported objectives of the Bill are about roll-overs, the definition of “trade agreement” is very wide and the long title does not restrict its use only to roll-overs.

New clause 8 would ensure that the UK Government have a duty to restrict market access to healthcare services, including medicines and medical devices. We tabled the new clause precisely because trade deals potentially have a negative impact on health services. While the UK Government have repeatedly pledged that the NHS is not on the table in trade negotiations, leaked documents detail conversations between UK and US negotiators and reveal that health services have been discussed, including the US probing the UK’s “health insurance system”, and the US has made clear its desire for the UK to change its drug pricing mechanism. The new clauses therefore include specific carve-outs for the NHS, all relevant services and regulation, meaning that it would be illegal for the Government to conclude a trade agreement that altered the way that NHS services are provided, or liberalised further, or opened up to particular sorts of foreign investment.

There could be no use of negative listing because such clauses require that all industries are liberalised in trade agreements unless there are specific carve-outs, and it is not always easy to define what services count as health services. For example, digital services may seem irrelevant to health, but NHS data management and GP appointment systems are increasingly digitised. There could be no standstill or ratchet clauses, because these provisions mean that after the trade deal has been signed, parties are not allowed to reduce the level of liberalisation beyond what it was at the point of signature.

There are many examples of real-world potential impacts; I will give just one. The Scottish Government had private cleaners in the NHS and quite a high degree of hospital acquired infection. The private cleaners were replaced by NHS cleaners, and the level of hospital acquired infection fell dramatically. Had a ratchet been in effect, let alone ISDS, it might not have been possible to do that, with detrimental mortality and morbidity consequences for real patients. The clause also states that there should be investor-state dispute settlement clauses in trade agreements. They only allow private investors to challenge Government policy when it affects their profits. The BMA piled in to this debate, as well, saying:

“The Bill must rule out Investor Protection and Dispute Resolution mechanisms which undermine the supremacy of UK courts and risk deterring, delaying or blocking public health improvement measures.”

We have seen examples around the world of where that has happened. It is fundamentally quite wrong for large corporations to be able to use ISDS-type arrangements to sue Governments simply for taking steps to protect the wellbeing of their citizens, or for enacting public health measures that they believe to be right and for which they may well have an electoral mandate.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fine speech. Does he agree that it seems a considerable irony that those Government Members who were so determined that this country should not be subject to any supranational court system should hereby, in an ISDS clause, enable our Government to be sued by foreign companies in specialist supranational courts in a way that is not even accessible to our own domestic companies?

[Stewart Hosie]

Yes, and I made that point. It is wrong for these provisions to be available only to investors in the way that has just been described. If we want a supranational body that adjudicates, arbitrates and works, let us have the UK Government put some pressure on their friends in the United States and get the WTO appellate body back up and running and functioning again. That would be the best thing for trade around the world.

New clause 8 would also instruct that there should be no changes to drug pricing mechanisms, which could also happen through intellectual property and non-patent exclusivities. That would be bad news for patients, taxpayers, health boards and trusts around the country, and our view is that trade deals should not be used to facilitate it.

In opposing a new clause like this one in Committee, the Minister said that

“the NHS is not, and never will be, for sale to the private sector”.

Fine. He said:

“We have always protected our right to choose how we would deliver public services in trade agreements, and we will continue to do so.”

Fundamentally, his argument was that “however laudable” the new clause was, it was “unnecessary”. He went on to explain that the UK already had

“rigorous checks and balances on the Government’s power to negotiate and ratify”

trade agreements

“via the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 315.]

There are two big issues that jump out, given what the Minister said—and I have it in full if he wants to re-read it. First, there is absolutely no practical reason why protections for the NHS demanded by the public should not be included in the Bill. Secondly and more importantly, because the so-called “rigorous checks and balances” in CRAG amount to little more than a take-it-or-leave-it choice at the end of the negotiations, the need to protect the NHS from the outset in legislation is paramount.

I commend amendment 10 and new clauses 7 and 8 to the House, and I hope—time permitting—that we can press new clause 7 and amendment 10 to a vote.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We now have a time limit of four minutes.