Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Elizabeth Truss

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.

Japan Free Trade Agreement

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Elizabeth Truss

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

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Elizabeth Truss

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Elizabeth Truss

Thursday 18th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Scottish Land and Estates has said that food and farming is critical, and it is concerned that UK producers are not placed in an impossible situation where they have to compete in an effective “race to the bottom”. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give that cheaply produced agrifood imports will not lead to that race to the bottom?

[Elizabeth Truss]

First, we have the independent Food Standards Agency, which is committed to high food standards. All the food standards that are currently with us through EU law are put into UK law as a result of the withdrawal agreement, so those standards are not going to be lowered, and they are not going to be negotiated as part of any trade agreement.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, but I did not ask about food quality standards; I understand that. I am asking about production standards. As the National Farmers Union of Scotland has pointed out, there is deep concern about the importation of agrifoods into the UK that may be produced to an inequivalent and uncompetitive standard. How will she guard against agrifood imports produced to that inequivalent standard, which is much cheaper and simply could not or would not be done in the UK?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Scottish beef and lamb is a very high-quality product and highly competitive. When the beef ban is ended with the US, we will have the opportunity to get British beef into the US market—there is £66 million-worth of opportunity for that product—but in every trade agreement I negotiate, I will always make sure that our farmers, with their high standards, are not undermined.

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

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Elizabeth Truss

Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

First, I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work he did as International Trade Secretary in pursuing this ambitious agenda. It is great that I have the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), the Minister responsible for exports, on the Front Bench with me, and we are working on a new export strategy precisely to take advantage of the new trade agreements we are negotiating. One thing we are negotiating in all those agreements is a dedicated SME chapter to make it easier for our small and medium-sized enterprises to get through procedures, to get rid of a lot of the red tape and to get into those overseas markets. We will be spending this year helping those companies to do that.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for early sight of it. I agree with her that forging trade links with the wider Pacific region is a good thing to do. I would also say that membership of CPTPP, if we can join on the right terms, may help to claw back some of the enormous losses that will result from Brexit.

At its heart, however, the Secretary of State’s statement was little more than hopeful rhetoric about the UK’s future trade prospects, and those prospects are by no means certain, as is evidenced by the rather modest rise in Canadian exports to partner countries. Her statement did not tell us in any detail what is actually proposed to be discussed, and it does rather beggar belief that she did not see fit to report to the House the challenges, difficulties and sticking points that she foresees in future negotiations; nor, I suspect, has she given any comfort to those who raised many significant concerns over accession in the last consultation.

What limits will the Secretary of State set in her negotiations on lowering barriers to allow for greater market access for foreign services suppliers? What limits will she place on the removal or weakening of behind-the-border non-tariff barriers, and what about important things such as workers’ rights, product safety regulations and food quality standards? What action does she propose to ensure that the monitoring of partner countries adheres to core International Labour Organisation standards, and that freedom of association is allowed in partner countries? What action will she take to avoid product dumping via partner countries becoming a very real problem? How will she allay concerns over investor-state dispute settlement provisions reducing the Government’s ability to legislate? Unless and until those and many other concerns are fully and transparently addressed, huge anxiety will remain in the public about whether CPTPP is even right for the UK.

[Elizabeth Truss]

What we are announcing today is our intention to accede, and we are talking to all 11 partners of CPTPP to have those preparatory discussions. Our formal application to CPTPP will require 11 different market access agreements to be sought with all the separate nations with which we are negotiating. We have absolutely no intention of lowering our food safety, environmental or labour standards, or any other standards. We are a high quality, high standards nation, and we want to work with the CPTPP countries on that basis. We believe in free trade and the rules-based system, and that is very much what CPTPP stands for.

The hon. Gentleman asked about investor-state dispute settlement systems. We have signed up to a number of those already, in a series of investor agreements that the UK has already made. Indeed, there are investor provisions in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which we are seeking to roll over with Canada. We will always ensure that the UK Government have the right to regulate, that we have control of our public services, and that the NHS is not on the table. If we do not get those things in any of the agreements we try to negotiate, we will simply walk away.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Elizabeth Truss

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can confirm that we will not lower our food import standards as a result of the US deal. We are going to maintain those standards; it is an important part of the quality assurance we have here in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are lots of opportunities for Norfolk farmers and producers from a US trade deal, and overall the east of England stands to benefit by £345 million.

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

Around a third of the value added of UK trade comes from indirect trade—indirect links—where goods and services are first exported to one country and subsequently exported to the UK. Given the importance of indirect trade and value chains generally, I am sure the Secretary of State would agree with the Dutch Trade Minister that we should rethink our trade deals to take a closer look at the sustainability of those value chains. Will she go further and agree that we should not just be looking at sustainability, but that trade deals should be as inclusive as possible and based on World Trade Organisation rules, and because of the importance of value chains and indirect trade—

UK-US Trade Deal

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Elizabeth Truss

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. May I thank him for the work that he put in as Trade Secretary, which has got us to this point where we are able to launch these negotiating objectives, and for doing all the fantastic work that he did with our colleagues in the United States? I know the Labour party does not seem to think that tariffs are important, but that is not so for a pottery manufacturer in Stoke-on-Trent who is facing 28% tariffs on their dinnerware going into the US. If we get those tariffs removed, that will mean that that factory is able to employ more people, grow its business and invest. Yet again, that is the Labour party refusing to understand how enterprise works and where wealth comes from in this country.

My right hon. Friend is right about the steel industry. It is currently facing £300 million-worth of tariffs a year. If we can get those tariffs removed, that provides a brilliant opportunity for our steel industry to sell more products in the United States.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and early sight of it. It is true that the analysis published today, which forms part of these documents, does provide some very useful information. It tells us that the maximum tariff reduction will be less than half a billion pounds, that the maximum increase in UK GDP would be 0.16%, that the maximum increase in gross value added for Scotland would be less than half a per cent—0.4%—and that, in the long-run, financial services GVA might actually go down. Yet in order to achieve these decidedly underwhelming targets, the UK will have to leave the European Union, surrender around 5% of GDP growth, and risk around 20% of UK global trade.

More worryingly, a pattern is emerging in the UK’s approach to trade negotiations. In the document on the future relationship with the EU, the UK seeks to exclude subsidies, competition policy, and environmental, tax and labour provisions from any dispute resolution mechanism. In today’s UK-US public negotiating objectives —only four pages of the total published today—there is limited reference to competition, labour and environment provision, nothing on subsidy or tax, and a single vague bullet point on dispute resolution that would enforce the level playing field and avoid the race to the bottom.

Apart from the environment, the Secretary of State mentioned none of those things in her statement. Let me ask her this: why are the UK Government giving the impression of abandoning level playing field provisions across so many aspects of modern trade deals? Why are they giving the impression that they are in favour of a wild west free-for-all in trade rather than a comprehensive rules-based system with a comprehensive dispute resolution mechanism? Why are they prepared to sacrifice so much in terms of global UK trade and GDP growth to secure what, by their own admission, are very, very modest gains indeed?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have news for the hon. Gentleman: we have already left the European Union, although the news might not have reached him.

Scotland is one of the largest potential beneficiaries of a US-UK free trade agreement. The hon. Gentleman sniffs at the half a billion pound extra value added to the Scottish economy that is analysed, but a number of Scottish businesses are supportive, including the Scottish chamber of commerce. I suggest that he listens, as we have been doing, to businesses in Scotland about how they can see their businesses grow.

The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned standards. In free trade agreements, including in the comprehensive and economic trade agreement, or CETA, there are often clauses saying that the parties will not deliberately lower standards for competitive advantage. That is what we are referring to in our US negotiating objectives and it is a perfectly proper and regular part of free trade agreements that we are happy to sign up to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Elizabeth Truss

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

Lowering barriers will mean lower costs for businesses and more choice for consumers. In Wolverhampton and the west midlands overall, we send one in five of all exports to the United States. Getting a trade deal with the US would mean a removal of tariffs on products such as cars, textiles and steel, so there are huge opportunities there for those businesses to grow.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I am glad that the Secretary of State expects us to cut lots of free trade deals, but they do not happen by chance; they happen by detailed analysis and tough negotiations. How does she believe we can succeed in those negotiations when the number of expert trade negotiators she has is a fraction of the 600 the EU has? More importantly, is she not setting herself up for a fall by rather foolishly, in my opinion, embarking on parallel trade negotiations with such limited resources with both the European Union and the USA?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am afraid I am not surprised to hear the SNP talking our country down. The fact is that we have scaled up our trade negotiation expertise. We now have approximately the same number as the US Trade Representative, which is one of the leading trade negotiators in the world. Our trade negotiators have already secured £110 billion of trade continuity deals, even though people such as the hon. Gentleman said it could not be done. Those negotiators have a wide experience in trade law from the private sector, and we have also recruited people from other Commonwealth nations with experience from the WTO. We have an excellent team at the Department for International Trade, and we have the staff in place ready to conduct the negotiations with the US, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Elizabeth Truss

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

We all wish to see reform of the WTO and a functioning dispute resolution system, but given that the UK is responsible for 3.4% of global trade compared with the EU being responsible for 35%—a full third—of global trade, is it not the case that the UK’s influence inside the WTO is now massively diminished?

[Elizabeth Truss]

One of the groups we are working very closely with is our Commonwealth partners. We are developing a Commonwealth caucus at the WTO that represents a third of the world’s population and has a very strong stake in making sure that the WTO works for small states, in particular. Of course we will work with the EU and of course we will work with the US when it is in our mutual interests, but the fact is that the EU has pursued protectionist policies, and that has not necessarily helped some of the least-developed nations. I believe that the UK will have a unique voice, particularly in favour of free trade.

Arms Export Licences (Saudi Arabia)

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Elizabeth Truss

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have put in place an interim procedure to ensure that there is sign-off from senior officials in all three relevant Departments and ministerial sign-off on any proposed export licences to the relevant parties. I also assure him that we are conducting an investigation, which will be led by a director general from the Department for Work and Pensions, into exactly what went wrong in this case to ensure that it cannot happen again.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I recognise and welcome the Secretary of State’s apology and acceptance of responsibility. It is true that the breaches in export licensing that are the subject of this urgent question may well be described, as she said, as “procedural”, but this case highlights some profound problems with her Department. We are talking about spare parts for armoured vehicles and for military radio used by Saudi land forces, which form half the Saudi military and were operating on the ground in Yemen when the licences were issued, forming part of the invasion by land into Yemen by a country—Saudi Arabia—found to be in breach of international humanitarian law, which is precisely what is supposed to be checked before licences are granted.

Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the provision of incomplete information shared across the Government was simple incompetence? Were her Department and others not aware of their responsibilities in this regard? She will have to be convincing, because I am not convinced that the actions being taken so far remove the perception that this Government and this Department are prepared to ignore the law—in this case, from the Court of Appeal—when it suits them to do so.

[Elizabeth Truss]

The Court of Appeal was very clear in its judgment that there is a rigorous and robust process in place across the Government. The question is about the specific sharing of information between Departments. I have absolute confidence that the unit, when it receives information, implements that in doing its work. The issue is the sharing of information. That is why we have conducted an internal review of the licences already issued as well as asking another Department to look across the board at where information was shared. This is not an issue about the process, which was deemed by the Court of Appeal to be rigorous and robust; it is about how that process has been followed. A lot of people are saying, “Why can’t we do this quicker?” It is very important that we get this right. In the interim period, I have put in place a procedure that makes sure that there is senior sign-off from all three Departments—the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the DIT—as well as ministerial sign-off. There was not ministerial sign-off on these licences. This was done under the previous procedure. There will now be ministerial sign-off on all the relevant licences.