Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con) I beg to move, That this House has
considered parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals. It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I am delighted that I
have been able to secure this debate, and I am particularly
grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the
opportunity to talk about trade deals and the scrutiny process that
goes with them. I am also very grateful to right hon. and hon.
Members, who...Request free trial
(Totnes) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered parliamentary scrutiny of trade
deals.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I
am delighted that I have been able to secure this debate, and I
am particularly grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for
granting me the opportunity to talk about trade deals and the
scrutiny process that goes with them. I am also very grateful to
right hon. and hon. Members, who have heard me pontificate on
this subject at great length on a number of occasions over the
last two years. I should say that I am a member of the
International Trade Committee.
I welcome the Minister back to his position as a Trade Minister.
He is a friend and an extremely able Minister, and we are all
delighted to see him back in his position, where he so rightly
belongs. We very much look forward to working with him, both in
Committee and in the main Chamber, where we will, I hope, have
more opportunity to debate our trade deals.
I should start by saying that I am universally pro free trade and
in favour of the Government’s agenda in the trade deals that they
are signing. Our trade agreements have been an absolute litany of
successes. Not only have we rolled over 70 trade agreements since
our departure from the European Union, but we have signed deals
with Australia and New Zealand. There are discussions under way
about joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for
trans-Pacific partnership, and signing deals with the Gulf
Cooperation Council, India and Canada. We have successfully
signed a trade agreement with Singapore on a digital partnership
basis, which is viewed as the gold standard in digital trade. We
have signed a trade agreement with Japan, which is already
opening up new markets and setting benchmark rates around digital
concepts.
Those are all incredibly important agreements, and they matter
because they make a huge difference to our economy, to how the
Government interact with their allies around the world and to the
businesses in our respective constituencies. They offer each and
every one of us the opportunity to trade, to create global
harmony and to open up opportunities for those who live and work
in the United Kingdom, and those with whom we have signed trade
deals. This is an important part of what was promised when we
left the European Union, and I believe that we are being
extremely successful in tackling the new trade agreements,
although there have obviously been a few pitfalls along the
way.
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I would be humbled and delighted to do so.
The hon. Gentleman and I sit on the International Trade
Committee, and he is making a very good defence of the
Government’s work. We heard in the Trade (Australia and New
Zealand) Bill Committee only an hour or so ago—it finished only
20 minutes ago—that British firms bidding in Australia will have
disadvantageous terms compared with those of French companies,
because the Australian deal weakens the global baseline.
These things are probably technical errors. They are things that
were probably overlooked and that I hope are great mistakes; if
they are not, someone in the Government should be hanging their
head in shame. I think these mistakes would have been picked up
with proper parliamentary scrutiny during negotiations, before
the deal was signed or even ratified—just as happens in America
and the European Union, and just as the French, Germans and most
developed countries get in their national Parliaments. The
International Trade Committee should be involved in the detail of
the work on the negotiations before the text is published in
camera, but this Government continue to refuse to allow that.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on literally nothing apart from
this point about scrutiny. I thoroughly enjoy working with him on
this issue, because there is genuine cross-party consensus about
the need for scrutiny. I say in response to him that trade deals
are not static. We should not view them as static, because they
can evolve and improve. To the point he just made, where there
are pitfalls we should look to improve them, and to see how we
can develop the agreements in the future. He is absolutely right;
had we been given due process when we signed the free trade
agreement with Australia, Parliament would have been able to
debate this issue at length and we could have rooted out some of
the issues before we ratified the agreement.
As we sign all the trade agreements, there is good news to be
told, but a cloud has hung over all the excellent work. I want to
raise four points—I am conscious that a number of Members of
Parliament want to speak—that the Minister might consider and
respond to. First, we must ensure that there is a long-term
strategy for trade negotiations. We need better clarity. It is
clear that the Government have a big appetite to sign new trade
deals, and therefore they must consider how they will convey to
Members of Parliament, trade bodies and the general public an
understanding of their ambition. If we have a long-term strategy,
we can at least understand the Government’s direction of travel,
and we can scrutinise it to better effect to see whether the
goals have been met. I really cannot think that any Member in
this room is against the United Kingdom signing trade deals, but
we need to understand whether we are meeting those goals and
whether the Department for International Trade is improving or
worsening in its ability to take on new trade agreements.
My second point is about issues on which our provision would not
change in any circumstance, such as human rights. It is essential
that there is a standard level of human rights clauses in our
trade agreements. There is a moral obligation for us to do
that.
My third and perhaps most lengthy point is about something that
came into being in 1924, the whole premise and purpose of which
was to give us a say over international agreements that were
signed. It was updated in the late 2000s by the Labour Government
in something called the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act
2010, which basically said that we would have 21 days to ratify a
new trade agreement. Within that, Members would be given time in
Parliament to debate and vote on the issue, with a votable motion
at the end of the debates. If it were rejected, there would be an
extension of a further 21 days before ratification.
The previous three International Trade Secretaries have all
affirmed the existence and the importance of CRaG and the need to
use proper parliamentary scrutiny to get into the weeds of our
trade agreements. In fact, the previous Secretary of State for
International Trade said that CRaG provides a sound framework to
scrutinise treaties that is less than a decade old. That is of
real importance. Successive Ministers, including the Minister who
is here today, have talked about the value of CRaG in ensuring
that we, as Back-Bench Members of Parliament who are not in
Government, can justify the agreements that we are passing and
ensure that due process has taken place.
To the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown
() just a moment ago, the
scrutiny has taken place; the value is there for British
taxpayers, businesses and residents; and we are signing good
deals. Ultimately, if we get these agreements right, we will only
get better at this. If Members from all parts of the House are
given due process to scrutinise trade agreements, we will only
make better and more successful ones.
On 9 February, the Minister said that we have a robust scrutiny
arrangement that allows Parliament to hold the Government to
account. Let us take the Australia-UK free trade agreement, for
which we were not given due warning of the CRaG process starting.
There was not enough time for Ministers to come before the
International Trade Committee to discuss the terms of the
Australia free trade agreement. In fact, the previous Secretary
of State was invited eight times and did not attend. When the
CRaG process was started, the International Trade Committee had
not even had time to publish its report. That is not the way it
should be.
Let me make it crystal clear that the International Trade
Committee should be given the right to publish its report before
the start of the 21-sitting-day CRaG period, to ensure that due
process is followed and that Members from across the House can
read the report, digest it and prepare to debate and vote on the
trade deal in Parliament. Can the Minister guarantee that a
Secretary of State will appear before the Committee to discuss a
trade deal ahead of our publication of any report on it? It
should not be hard for us to secure a Secretary of State to
discuss these trade deals of which we should, rightly, be so
proud.
The important point, from my perspective, is that I am not asking
for a veto. In fact, a vote to delay ratification does not change
the terms of an agreement. It just delays it, and sends a very
clear message that, should we sign another trade agreement,
certain principles and concepts should be thought about again. We
have to take that into account. I am not an extremist about the
need for Parliament to come in, rip up trade agreements and
decide what goes in or out of them. I am simply making the point
that we must ensure that we have a say. We must have an
opportunity to be constructive in a way that allows us to justify
the creation of our trade deals and scrutinise their
components.
Compared to other countries, we are behind the times on this
issue. America has a more rigorous system. In Canada, Parliament
has an opportunity to debate and—in some instances, although not
in statute—to vote on trade agreements. Let us catch up with
them. Let us justify it, because it will only improve the
process.
(York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument, with which I
entirely agree. The UK has not done trade deals for many years,
and there seems to be a slight lack of expertise out there, which
is no fault of Government or Ministers. Does he think that that
is a reason to have extra time for scrutiny? Also, there is
plenty of expertise in the international businesses and
industries that operate in the UK. Does he think that the
Government should use that expertise more readily?
I thank my hon. Friend for his incredibly helpful intervention.
Yes, I do. The International Trade Committee has sizeable
limitations, and a number of trade deals are being signed. If we
are able to discuss such matters with more people, open this up,
and allow people to debate and scrutinise, we will be able to
improve the actual process. If hon. Members were to ask anyone in
the Department for International Trade whether they had learned
lessons between the signing of the Australia trade agreement and
the signing of the New Zealand trade agreement, they would
clearly see that lessons have been learned: the situation has
improved, and we are getting better and better. From the
officials that have come before the International Trade
Committee, it is clear that the Department is doing a fantastic
job in tackling international trade agreements. It is learning
each day how to do it, in a way that we have not had to for the
last 40 years. It is right that we use the expertise in both
Parliament and trade bodies across the country.
My last point is around the International Trade Committee’s
resources. An extraordinary, dedicated group of people works to
help us, as Members of Parliament, do our duty on that Committee.
We have found it incredibly frustrating to see their hard work
sometimes ignored and sometimes rubbished, because we have not
had the access and due process—which was always promised to us, I
hasten to add—to ensure that our reports can be produced, read
and valued by Members of Parliament. We must change that system;
otherwise, the International Trade Committee is completely
redundant. I ask the Minister to listen carefully to what we are
asking for. We are asking for access to Ministers and for time to
produce our reports. We are asking for CRaG to be amended to
include debates and voteable motions, so that we, as Members of
Parliament, have opportunities to debate trade agreements.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
I invite the hon. Gentleman to offer a view on whether there
might be a fifth point for consideration. What has come out of
the India discussions shows us that we must have a domestic
politics that mirrors the approach in international trade.
Otherwise, we will not have successful trade negotiations.
The right hon. Gentleman caught me from a surprise angle here. I
do not know exactly what is in the India trade agreement, other
than the rumours that have been reported. Our discussions about
it have very much been on the basis of speculation rather than
the reality of it. In all seriousness, if that is the case, it is
something that we need to look at further.
There is value in ensuring that we get this issue right. We can
improve the system, improve the value of trade agreements and
ensure that there is greater buy-in from Members of Parliament. I
hope the Minister will understand where I am coming from. I am
not attacking the Government’s agenda, and I am not attacking the
trade deals we are signing; I am merely asking that Back Benchers
are given an opportunity to have their day in Parliament to
discuss these very important trade agreements.
(in the Chair)
Before I call Back Benchers in to speak, I am hoping to bring
Front Benchers in by eight minutes past the hour, if you can bear
that in mind while you are speaking.
4.45pm
(West
Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Totnes () for securing the debate.
Members will know that I have a very specific interest in
ensuring there is ample scrutiny of these trade deals—notably,
any one with India. My constituent Jagtar Singh Johal has been
arbitrarily detained in an Indian prison for almost five years,
and the authorities of the Republic of India seem unable or
unwilling to address the allegations of torture, abuse of process
and arbitrary detention that have dogged the case and my
constituent.
Quite simply, as the Minister may or may not agree, this is a
case that really gets to the root of both this debate and the UK
Government’s ongoing attitude to pursuing these trade deals. This
is a case where we see the power of the unstoppable force—namely
that one of the largest supposed benefits of Brexit was the
ability of the UK Government to gain unfettered access to the
world’s fastest-growing economies—meet the immovable object,
namely the UK Government’s clearly stated aim, articulated so
well by the sadly departed Minister at the Foreign, Commonwealth
and Development Office, the hon. Member for Gillingham and
Rainham (), that
“We will not pursue trade to the exclusion of human
rights”—[Official Report, 7 September 2022; Vol. 719, c.
258WH.]
It is a matter of some considerable record, because I speak about
it quite a lot in both the Chamber and Westminster Hall, as hon.
and right hon. Members will know.
The human rights failings in the case of Jagtar Singh Johal are
manifest and egregious. Despite this, we continue with a policy
where a UK-India FTA has now become probably the greatest prize
in the view of the Government, as long as the US-UK FTA remains
unachievable. What can the Minister say to us to demonstrate
consequences for the Republic of India for its continued
mistreatment of my constituent or, alternatively, what it would
have to do for the UK to threaten to pull the plug on these
talks? Either way, it appears unarguable that in continuing to
pursue this trade agreement, the Government are setting a
precedent for future deals that human rights, and the rights of
individual UK citizens, are placed below the pursuit of growth.
In that sense, those who seek to defend human rights can probably
join that distinguished list of those that the Prime Minister has
labelled “the anti-growth coalition”. We see plenty of evidence
in other areas that the UK Government’s pick-and-choose attitude
to human rights and free trade agreements is making any claims to
democratic accountability and oversight seem quite
ridiculous.
Take the glee with which the Prime Minister trumpets the UK’s
determination to sign a free trade agreement with a host of Gulf
states, while speaking about preventing authoritarian
regimes—such as Russia and, rightfully, China—from having any
leverage in the UK economy. It is a truly bizarre situation.
While I and other members of the Scottish National party have
long called for the UK to wean itself off Russian and Chinese
investments that have made so many people in this city and this
Parliament enormously wealthy, the Government seem to be seeking
to replace those investments with ones from regimes whose human
rights and democratic records are essentially the same, and
that—as demonstrated by recent OPEC decisions—do not share our
broader geopolitical agenda. While we can correctly cite Russia’s
assassination of dissidents by regime-loyal criminals as a reason
to sanction it, we do not apply the same rationale to the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia when it invites dissidents into one of its
embassies and chops them up with a bone saw. While China is
rightly criticised for its debt-trap diplomacy in places such as
Sri Lanka, we rarely use the same rationale when we allow Emirati
sovereign wealth funds to buy critical pieces of UK economic
infrastructure, only for them to sack thousands of staff and
threaten the Government with the closure of that
infrastructure.
Quite simply, parliamentary scrutiny of these trade deals starts
and ends with hard and fast rules, which this Government can use
to build confidence in the House. Otherwise, I have to say: what
is the point?
I would hope that my colleagues in the SNP and I—and, I am happy
to wager, the vast majority of Scottish voters—would never stand
for swapping the largest democratic free trade agreement and
single market in human history for a series of piecemeal
agreements that are, from my perspective, of dubious value. We
will never stop shouting about the absurdity of leaving that
single market, composed as it is of democracies with whom we
share so much, in exchange for a sugar rush of cheap money and
dealings with authoritarian regimes that share so few of the
values that we here in Europe hold very dear.
(in the Chair)
I am introducing an informal time limit of less than four minutes
to try and get everyone in.
4.51pm
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, I
believe for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for
Totnes () on securing this
debate.
Much of the political energy of this generation of politicians
has been consumed by the fallout from the Brexit referendum in
2016. I remember visiting Washington with a cross-party
delegation prior to the referendum. Ms Elliott, I believe that
you were part of that delegation, so you may correct me if I am
wrong, but nobody in that delegation believed that the UK would
vote to terminate its relationship with the European Union. It is
hardly surprising, therefore, that prior to the result of the
referendum, not much serious thought had gone into what Brexit
actually meant.
Following the vote, there was a political breakdown, as decision
makers scrambled to interpret the result. Do people remember the
period between the referendum and the 2019 general election? This
place was consumed with debating different interpretations of the
referendum result. I argued for the UK to stay within the
European Union’s economic frameworks, for reasons that have
become plain for all of us to see, as the dream of splendid
economic isolationism from Europe in return for a mythical global
Britain has turned to ash.
I suppose that if sensible voices had prevailed during that
period, we would not be having this debate, because we would be
safely within the single market and the customs union. However,
the debate was won by the Brexit ultras, and the prize that they
cherished above all was an independent trade policy.
We could have a long debate about how truly independent the UK’s
trade policy has turned out to be. It seems to me that the
British Government have been rolling over previous EU-negotiated
trade deals. With the Prime Minister having admitted that there
is no prospect of a trade deal with the US, I think that many of
us will wonder what the point was of burning down those bridges
with the European economic area.
Perhaps because we have been faced with these economic realities,
we have seen the Prime Minister, in her first few weeks in power,
endorse a strategy of thawing relations with the EU. To avoid
being petulant in this debate, I welcome that. It is far from
where the UK should be, but it might be the start of a journey
back to reality.
May I therefore first associate myself with the comments of
everyone who has spoken about the need for improved scrutiny of
trade policy? The Great Brexit slogan of “taking back control”
clearly did not mean bringing back power to Parliament. Instead,
returning powers have been concentrated at an Executive
level.
Each trade deal should be subject to a binding yes/no vote in the
Commons; Parliament should agree the terms of negotiation before
the British Government begin talks; and the International Trade
Committee should—
(in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in
the House.
4.53pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.07pm
On resuming—
(in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is resumed. The debate will now continue until
5.45 pm. I remind Members to keep their contributions to around
four minutes.
Diolch, Ms Elliott. I believe I was about to make the point that
the International Trade Committee should have a stronger role
during negotiations.
On another visit to Washington with an all-party group to
investigate the transatlantic trade and investment partnership
between the US and the EU, I recall a meeting with
representatives of the US food industry. At the time, there was
some dispute in relation to genetically modified organisms and
hormones in food products. During that meeting, we were left in
no doubt that nothing would make its way through Congress unless
there was movement on the EU side in the negotiations on those
specific points. The point I am trying to make is that increased
scrutiny would actually strengthen the hand of UK negotiators, as
opposed to weakening it.
What I really want to highlight is the need for Wales and
Scotland to also be involved in that scrutiny. Trade policy will
impact on devolved policy areas, so it is completely unacceptable
and unsustainable that the Welsh and Scottish Governments and
Parliaments are excluded from decision making. From my
perspective in Carmarthenshire, agriculture is extremely
important. Agriculture is a devolved matter. For coherent policy,
therefore, surely the Welsh Government and Senedd Members should
play a full role in trade policy, including through a binding
vote on deals in the Welsh Senedd, full scrutiny by the relevant
Senedd Committees and a formal role for the Welsh Government in
the negotiating process.
Belgium provides a good example. Its central state cannot ratify
European trade deals without the support of its so-called
sub-national Parliaments. As it stands, therefore, Wallonia has
more power over EU trade deals than Wales has over UK trade
deals. That is not a very good look for the British Union.
5.09pm
(Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes () on securing today’s
debate and on his excellent speech.
The Australia free trade agreement set a precedent.
Unfortunately, when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny, it
demonstrated what not to do. Select Committees were given
insufficient time to prepare their reports; parliamentarians and
key stakeholder organisations were given insufficient time to
digest and scrutinise those reports; and, crucially, elected
Members of Parliament were denied a meaningful debate and vote on
the agreement.
It is worth repeating what the hon. Member for Totnes alluded to
earlier. The relevant Select Committees were denied sufficient
time to scrutinise and advise on the agreement. There were just
seven sitting days between the Government publishing their
section 42 report on the free trade agreement and triggering the
CRaG period. At that time, the International Trade Committee had
been able neither to take oral evidence from the Secretary of
State nor to finalise its report on the agreement.
That evasion was facilitated by the vague language in the
Government’s commitments. For example, they said that they would
“endeavour” to share the signed free trade agreement with the
International Trade Committee prior to publication, “where time
allows”, and that they would ensure that Select Committees had a
“reasonable amount of time” to scrutinise free trade agreements
and produce reports.
This is easily fixed. The Government must replace these vague
commitments with stronger ones containing concrete guarantees and
well-defined timelines, which provide Committees with the time
they need to undertake full and proper scrutiny of
agreements.
My biggest concern, however, is the failure of the Government to
facilitate a meaningful debate and vote on the agreement. That
cannot happen again. A desire to hurriedly chalk up deals has
left farmers and fruit producers feeling sold out by the
Australia trade deal, with the services industry raising concerns
over the India trade deal, which none of us has seen. The
Government must ensure that they do not repeat their mistakes. I
urge the Minister to strengthen the Government’s commitment to
the parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements and to focus
on the quality, rather than quantity, of the deals that his
Department strikes.
5.11pm
(Birkenhead) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (), whom I have the
pleasure of serving alongside on the International Trade
Committee, on securing this important and timely debate. I
declare an interest as a member of Unite the union. The hon.
Member and I undoubtably have major points of disagreement when
it comes to not only the Australia free trade agreement, but
trade policy more broadly. He has, however, raised a number of
important issues and speaks for the entire Committee in
expressing his frustration about Government conduct on this
issue.
The UK has embarked on the most dramatic overhaul of its trading
policy since its accession to the European Economic Community in
1973. The implications of the decisions that the Government make
in the coming months and years for our labour rights,
environmental standards and businesses the length and breadth of
the country could not be more significant. It is essential that
any new trade deal is subject to rigorous and comprehensive
scrutiny both by the Select Committee and by Members of the House
more widely. That is the model employed by our Commonwealth
partners, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand. That is
exactly what the Prime Minister committed to when she promised a
“world-leading scrutiny process” when she was International Trade
Secretary.
I am afraid that Ministers are failing to listen to the concerns
of Members, businesses and civil society in their frantic dash to
conclude new trade deals. In March, our Committee Chairman warned
that the Government are failing to do enough to enable timely and
appropriate scrutiny of trade agreements and accused Ministers of
ignoring legitimate concerns and riding roughshod over
Parliament. Yet the 21-day CRaG process for the Australia free
trade deal had begun before our Committee had the opportunity to
publish our report and even before the International Trade
Secretary had bothered to come before the Committee to defend the
agreement. When we requested that the CRaG process be extended to
allow time for adequate scrutiny, our request was flatly denied.
That was an unacceptable assault on the rights of Parliament and
the people we are here to represent. I urge the new Secretary of
State not to allow that deeply flawed process to set a dangerous
precedent for future trade negotiations.
Finally, I want to raise an issue that I have spoken about a
number of times in the Committee. Meaningful engagement with
civil society and the inclusion of key stakeholders in the
negotiation process is essential to achieving a trade policy that
works in the interests of British workers, industry and our
environment. However, the Trades Union Congress has also accused
the Government of a lack of continued stakeholder engagement
during trade negotiations and says that a failure to meaningfully
engage with trade unions has resulted in the Government agreeing
trade deals that lack adequate protections for workers’ rights.
Yet again, Ministers are hiding from robust scrutiny because they
know that the deals they are agreeing are simply not delivering
for the British people. This is simply not good enough.
5.14pm
(Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms
Elliott.
I pay huge tribute to the hon. Member for Totnes () for securing this debate
and for his excellent speech, much if not most of which I agreed
with. Like him, I am a free trader. Free trade is massively
important, and not just for prosperity; if we had more free trade
with the markets on our doorstep, the cost of living crisis would
not be as bad as it is.
Free trade is important for fairness and prosperity, but also for
peace, because it integrates countries and makes conflicts
between them seem much less plausible and more unthinkable. Let
us remember that the European Coal and Steel Community, in its
first few years in the 1950s, was about knitting together
countries that had been at war. The accession of the eastern
European states through the ’90s and noughties was about knitting
together countries that had been enemies on either side of the
cold war.
Free trade is dead important, and my criticism of the Australia
and New Zealand deals is a criticism not of free trade but of
deals that are not free—if they are not fair, they are not free.
It is absolutely right that, as a country that has taken back
control as a sovereign nation, we should be able to dictate the
negotiating terms on which we go about setting up trade deals.
How could Parliament have dealt with this better or be given the
power to deal with it better? Most MPs on both sides of the House
wanted Parliament to do its job better than it was allowed to,
particularly on the New Zealand and Australia trade deals.
Better scrutiny means that Parliament should be able to sign off
the negotiating mandate, and then sign off the deal itself.
Surely, as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire () said, we have a
right as a country to dictate the terms on human rights, animal
welfare, environmental issues and carbon reduction. They should
surely underpin the negotiating mandate of any trade deal. Then,
when a vote is taken, it must not be taken after the damage has
been done.
The Conservative party’s 2019 manifesto stated:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our
high environmental protection, animal welfare and food
standards.”
That is not true. That manifesto commitment has been broken.
Let us look in particular at the deal with Australia. The average
suckler beef herd in Britain is 30 cows. In Australia, it is
hundreds upon thousands of cattle. It is not that Australians are
brutes and terrible at animal welfare, but the nature of farming
in Australia means that it is cheaper per unit and crueller in
practice. The same animal husbandry cannot be done for 1,000
cattle as for 30.
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, but I urge a bit
of caution on that point, because we would never sign trade
agreements with other countries if we expect them to have exactly
the same standards. As he rightly pointed out, we have the
highest standards in animal welfare around the world. The hope is
that, if we sign trade agreements with places such as Australia,
they can start seeing how they can match our standards and rise
up to them, rather than us lowering ours, because there is
absolutely no intention of us doing that.
Well, that is the theory, but the Government’s own figures and
modelling show that the Australia trade deal, for the very
reasons I was just setting out, will give a £94 million hit to
British farming. There is no doubt that the deal has sold out
and—in the words of Minette Batters, the excellent president of
the National Farmers Union—betrayed British farmers. The impact
of the trade deal undermines British farming and the standards
and ethics of the United Kingdom in general—in particular of the
way we farm. That is added to a set of assaults on British
farming.
The transition to the new farm payments scheme is in complete
chaos. The removal of direct payments—20% by this Christmas—will
plunge many farmers into poverty. Meanwhile, many farms are
trying to engage with the new environmental land management
system. Two years down the road, they will change their
businesses, and now they do not know what to do. The Government
have sort of part-listened and have thrown everything up in the
air; it is total chaos. There is chaos in farming and in the
market.
The greenest thing that the British Government could do is keep
Britain’s farmers farming, because without farmers we cannot
deliver the environmental goods. Likewise, we cannot deliver the
food that we all rely on. If we become less and less
self-sufficient, that has a moral impact as we push up the price
of commodities for the poorest counties in the world. The failure
to conduct fair and transparent trade deals with the scrutiny of
this Parliament undermines British farming in general and puts at
risk our environmental imperatives, our food production and, by
connection, the poorest people in the world, whose food prices
will go up because we cannot feed ourselves. That is why we must
get it right next time. Free trade is important, but we must not
throw our farmers under the bus in the process. Free trade that
is not fair is not free in the first place.
5.19pm
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab/Co-op)
I hope that this is an opportunity to reset our relationship. It
is no secret that the relationship between the International
Trade Committee and the previous Secretary of State, the right
hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (), was toxic. It was
bad. She held the Committee in disregard and, frankly, the
Committee held her in disregard. Let us be honest about it. The
officials around her gave her bad advice. They gave her arrogant
advice, and she encouraged it by responding and goading them to
give her that advice. That needs to end, and it needs to end
now.
The advice needs to be that the new Secretary of State has to
make time in her diary to make sure that we are seen in a timely
manner. The promises have to be fulfilled. The Secretary of State
cannot expect to get away with what has been done in the past,
because it was quite frankly embarrassing for everyone. Of
course, it does not have to be like that. There are many other
Departments that have very good relationships with their
Secretary of State. I have sat on many other Committees in this
House, and I have never seen such a dysfunctional
relationship.
(in the Chair)
Order. It is usual that if a Member is going to directly
criticise or mention a Minister, they give them advance warning.
I am not sure whether that has been done, but if it has not, I
would certainly be putting that right after this meeting.
None of this is new or not on the record. I think I have been
even franker to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to
her face in Committee meetings, including about her officials,
but I will alert her to this because it is a speech that has come
from my contemplation today.
The Minister for Trade Policy ()
I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not impugning officials at the
Department for International Trade in that regard. I am not sure
whether he was, but I am sure that he would not want to be
questioning the integrity of the officials in the Department.
Maybe I misunderstood him and maybe that was not the case.
No, I think their advice to her was bad. That is my honest
feeling. It was not good advice on how she should conduct her
relationship with the Committee. It does not need to be like
that, because other Committees that I have sat on—and I have sat
on many—have had very good relationships with officials. I do not
think that the relationship with the officials and the previous
Secretary of State was good. I am afraid it is not just about the
Secretary of State on this matter.
When I was on the International Development Committee, the
relationship was such that we had private discussions and
briefings with the Secretary of State every month. They were
private, off the record and totally in camera. We would discuss
confidential issues relating to development spending—sometimes
where it had been misspent or where there were problems. The
Committee would then rally around the Secretary of State, the
Department and their officials when things were happening. That
is the kind of relationship that we need now, and it is the kind
of relationship that I think we can have now.
We need to review CraG, and the Public Administration and
Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I also sit on, is doing
that now. We need to strengthen CraG and we also need to have the
following things, which I will list quickly and then finish. We
need to ensure that heads of terms are presented to the Committee
and signed off by the House, just like in America, the European
Union and most other advanced democracies. We need to have
private briefings at every single stage and on every single
chapter. That is what the EU and the US get. If it is good enough
for them, it needs to be good enough for us. We need to have
embedded people in some of the key negotiations. Again, the US
Senate has that, and that is what we should be expecting. It is
not good enough for Ministers or the Department to tell us that
these are confidential discussions. They are in the national
interest and they must include the Committee. It is unacceptable
for them to think that the Committee is not trustworthy.
We need a proper set of trade commissioners who give impartial
advice to the Committee. The Committee needs to be given the
resources for a set of sub-committees and staff. The Committee
could then look at broad issues and the sub-committees could look
at trade-by-trade issues. It is not good enough that the
Committee is having to do all the trade-by-trade issues, which
means that we are not looking at any of the broad issues in our
scrutiny.
(in the Chair)
May I remind Opposition spokespeople that in one-hour debates,
the convention is five minutes? I call the SNP spokesperson, Anum
Qaisar.
5.24pm
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Elliott,
I believe for the first time. I thank the hon. Member for Totnes
() for securing this
important debate and for his reasoned contribution.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham () about the importance of
ensuring that Parliament can scrutinise trade deals. After
exiting the European Union, the UK finds itself negotiating trade
deals for the first time in over 50 years, yet with minimal
scrutiny by this House.
Trade deals are no longer simply focused on tariffs and border
crossings, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale
() said. They touch on every element of our daily lives,
from jobs and environmental protection to food safety and public
services. Given that these trade deals will have a lasting impact
on our constituents’ lives, the lack of scrutiny is
disappointing.
The measures that do exist to scrutinise trade deals are simply
not up to scratch. Recent trade deals with Australia and New
Zealand exemplify the disregard for proper parliamentary
scrutiny, with those deals effectively signing away the
livelihood of Scottish farmers. Under the current CRaG procedure,
Parliament is granted little power in the scrutiny of trade
deals. It cannot block or amend deals, but simply delay them.
Despite the Government promising that this Parliament would have
a full debate on the impact of the Australia trade deal, that has
not taken place. It appears that the new Government wish to
continue with this lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny.
On the topic of India, my hon. Friend the Member for West
Dunbartonshire () spoke incredibly
eloquently about his constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, and I
associate myself fully with all his concerns.
As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown () said, scrutiny of
trade deals by legislators is not uncommon. From an international
perspective, the UK is an outlier in its lack of parliamentary
oversight of international agreements. Our EU counterparts
require parliamentary ratification for any deal negotiated,
effectively giving them a veto over trade deals. A similar system
is also in place in the US, with Congress outlining the
objectives that the Government must follow in any negotiations.
By allowing Parliament greater scrutiny over deals, we would be
strengthening our system of oversight to match that of our
international counterparts.
As has been said by hon. Members from across the House,
parliamentary scrutiny matters. There was a refusal to enshrine
basic animal welfare and environmental standards in the Australia
deal negotiated by our current Prime Minister. As I have said,
that effectively signed away Scottish farmers’ livelihoods. There
is much concern in Scotland. Trade deals would greatly benefit
from consultation with the devolved Administrations. The
agreements have completely disregarded devolution and eroded the
powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Scotland has its own legal jurisdiction over the environment,
procurement, farming and health, yet it was not properly
consulted about how the trade deals would impact those areas. It
is vital that the Scottish Parliament has a greater role in
scrutinising and approving agreements. It is unacceptable that
the Scottish Parliament is effectively being ignored and lacks
the power to delay or amend the terms of a deal that has huge
ramifications for Scottish agriculture and industry.
The UK should follow the approach adopted in Canada in its recent
negotiations with the EU. The Canadian Government consulted each
of the provincial administrations and involved them at every
stage of the negotiation. Similar systems, involving regional and
devolved Administrations, are commonplace internationally, and
the UK should look to emulate that by involving the Scottish
Parliament in all future negotiations.
It is vital that we get the negotiation of trade deals right.
Parliament must have a greater say in all trade negotiations, and
the devolved Administrations must be involved. Once a trade deal
has been ratified, it is incredibly difficult to amend the terms.
We must therefore ensure that the negotiations are done correctly
the first time. That can be done only if better mechanisms are
put in place to ensure that the UK Government are properly
scrutinised in their negotiation of trade deals.
5.29pm
(Brentford and Isleworth)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second
time today, Ms Elliott. I thank the hon. Member for Totnes
() for securing this
important debate on scrutiny of trade deals.
The Government have simply failed to ensure that
parliamentarians, businesses, non-governmental organisations,
sector representatives, devolved Administrations—as the SNP
spokesperson, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar),
said—and civic society can scrutinise our trade policy
adequately. Trade can and should be a force for good: it supports
well-paid jobs here in the UK and overseas, it can reduce poverty
around the globe and it can be a vehicle for tackling the evils
of our world, from human trafficking to environmental
degradation, to name but two.
Effective trade, however, needs effective scrutiny, as all other
equivalent nations have. We in the UK could learn a lot from
those nations, but for this Government “scrutiny” avoids
engagement. The whole process they operate avoids scrutiny and
engagement and actively harms the development of effective trade
policy and trade deals. We are not dealing in abstract facts.
When I met NFU representatives in Wales this summer, they told me
about their concerns and worries about the deal, particularly for
red-meat farmers. Moreover, when they did meet Ministers and
civil servants, they felt that they were being ignored.
To top that off, we have seen the sordid spectacle of the
Government hiding from a debate in the Commons. Before recess,
the then Secretary of State tried to deflect one and to claim
that no parliamentary time was available for a debate on the
detail of the UK-Australia deal. As the answer to a written
question that I tabled suggested, that was not true.
Why does this matter? This is not an abstract parliamentary
topic; it is about ensuring that consumers, farmers, businesses,
civic society, NGOs and Members of both Houses are involved in
matters of national importance. With his US example, the hon.
Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr () showed why engagement
strengthens trade deals. That is why virtually every other modern
developed nation has much stronger scrutiny requirements—not just
parliamentary scrutiny—for trade deals, including the US, the EU
and South Africa. I met parliamentarians in South Africa to
discuss this very issue, and we could learn a lot from South
African transparency in negotiating trade deals.
Effective scrutiny makes for effective deals. It increases
support for trade deals if consumers, workers and businesses feel
that they have been listened to as well as just consulted, yet
the free trade deal with Australia has a climate-shaped hole in
it. The president of the NFU has warned that
“this deal simply serves to heap further pressure on farm
businesses at a time when they are facing extraordinary
inflationary pressure”.
That happened because key stakeholders such as farmers were not
included in the process.
As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale () said, trade is not free if it is not fair. On the
agreements with the Gulf, there are serious human rights issues
in countries there, whether on the right to protest or the rights
of women, migrant labourers or many others. We now know that the
Government stripped human rights and the rule of law out of their
objectives for a Gulf deal.
The FTAs with India and the Gulf would have huge implications for
our climate commitments. My first question to the Minister is,
what assurances will he give that human rights will now be raised
as part of the process and that there will be proper scrutiny for
any free trade agreement with the Gulf?
The Secretary of State has been critical of the Government’s own
net zero pledge, calling it “arbitrary”. Perhaps that is why they
might wish to avoid any scrutiny. When the Prime Minister was
Secretary of State for International Trade, she selectively
released partial polling data, only to be rebuked by the British
Polling Council. We saw her ignore officials’ advice about the
impact of the UK-Australia deal on UK farmers.
In the past year, the former Secretary of State dodged the
International Trade Committee multiple times, as we have heard
today. The Department was even issued with an enforcement notice
by the Information Commissioner for delays to freedom of
information requests, further suggesting a fear of scrutiny and
openness. That suggests that the Government are avoiding scrutiny
and debate in both Houses.
I have focused on the Government’s attitude to the parliamentary
process, but we need assurances that Ministers are meeting, and
actually listening to the concerns of, other stakeholders. The
stakeholders we met feel there is too little consultation, and
even when there is they feel like they are being talked at rather
than listened to.
Will the Government grant a debate on the Floor of the House on
the UK-New Zealand trade agreement before it is ratified? If the
International Trade Committee requests a debate on the FTA with
India, will the Government grant it?
Finally, the Labour party is a pro-trade party. We want to see
the Government striking ambitious trade deals. We want to see
trade deals that support British business, British values and
economic growth. To do that, trade deals need to be accompanied
by proper scrutiny.
5.35pm
The Minister for Trade Policy ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. It
is great to be back at the Department for International Trade
after a one-year gap. It is good to engage on a huge number of
the issues that I used to engage on—I have had a quick crash
course to bring myself up to speed after the last year.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes () on securing the debate.
He is a genuine champion for global Britain and brings great
energy to the International Trade Committee—something I remember
from when I appeared before the Committee a number of times. The
Committee is extremely important to the work of the Department
for International Trade, as is the Lord’s International
Agreements Committee. Many important points have been raised
during the debate, and I will strive to cover as many as I can.
First, I will lay out a little context, but most of my speech
will deal with the points that have been raised.
For the first time in nearly half a century, the UK is free to
negotiate its own free trade agreements with the world’s
fastest-growing economies. The rewards will be significant:
higher wages, more jobs and more growth, with agreements
specifically tailored to the needs of the United Kingdom.
However, given that our free trade agreements equate to a
significant shift in trade policy and in how this country does
its trade policy, it is right that Parliament has the opportunity
to fully examine them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes rightly says that the CRaG
process came in during the last days of the Labour Government, in
2010. CRaG ensures that Parliament has 21 sitting days to
consider a deal before it can be ratified. Only once that period
has passed without either House resolving against the deal can it
proceed towards ratification. The Government believe that CRaG
continues to provide a robust framework, but we have added, in
addition to CRaG, some important parts to this process. In both
respects, the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the
Government’s constitutional right to negotiate international
agreements under the royal prerogative—
I am sorry to interrupt, but the Minister is making the point
that Parliament has the ability to consider these things under
CRaG. Parliament only has that ability if the Government allow
time for us debate and vote. We did not have that for the
Australia agreement. I think most of us want the Minister to say
today that, on the New Zealand agreement and the subsequent trade
agreements, we will have that time allocated, as outlined under
CRaG.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, I have
only been back at the Department two days now, but I will
carefully consider the representations that he has made on
parliamentary scrutiny. As I am laying out, CRaG is a process
that, I believe, works well overall. We have added elements to
CRaG, on top of the situation we inherited in 2010.
I should stress that no international treaty—we saw this in the
House earlier in the Committee stage of the Trade (Australia and
New Zealand) Bill—can of itself change the UK’s laws. That can be
done only by Parliament. What is more, it is the long-standing
practice of successive Governments to ratify treaties only once
relevant domestic implementing legislation is in place. As my
hon. Friend the Member for Totnes knows, the Australia free trade
agreement is not actually ratified yet, because the domestic
legislation is not yet in place.
My hon. Friend made an excellent speech. He rightly praised a
litany of successes and the importance of our trade policy in
making a difference to businesses, exporters, and consumers.
Having read through quite a few of these free trade agreements
and international trade agreements, I can say that there is no
point negotiating just for the sake of producing a doorstep-style
document. The point is to have an agreement that works for our
exporters, consumers and producers, as rightly pointed out by
various hon. Members.
May I give some praise to my officials? I was a little perturbed
by the points raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown
(). Whatever officials
may or may not have advised Ministers in the past, it is unfair
to attack them if Ministers chose not to follow that advice or
did something else. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to
think about that and perhaps intervene on me to clarify what he
meant.
What I should have said is that the Secretary of State hid behind
her officials, claiming that it was their advice that she was
following. I hope that that was not the case and I that officials
were giving her good, broad advice—I am sure they always do.
Let me take that in the spirit in which it is meant. I think we
will agree to move on, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point.
I am just saying that Ministers are always responsible for the
decisions and actions of their Departments. That is a very good
rule for how our constitution works.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes made various excellent
points about better clarity and better comms. In my experience,
there can always be better communication in the world of trade.
There is always a huge amount of misunderstanding in relation to
trade in general and free trade agreements in particular.
My hon. Friend mentioned outreach, which I will come back to. He
also mentioned human rights clauses. The UK has an incredibly
proud record—not only on our own human rights, but on the
engagement we do around the world. Free trade agreements are not
always the best way to engage on human rights—there are often
better ways to do that—but we do make sure that, wherever
appropriate, human rights are included in free trade agreements.
We will certainly engage with all our trade partners on the
issues that matter to the British people and the Government, be
they human rights or trade union rights.
Will the Minister give way?
Let me deal first with the points that my hon. Friend the Member
for Totnes raised and the specific case he mentioned. I will talk
about CRaG in a bit more detail, but the other part of his speech
was about respect for the International Trade Committee. I know
from the times I have appeared in front of that Committee how
important it is. It is ably chaired by the hon. Member for Na
h-Eileanan an Iar ()—I have mutilated the
pronunciation of the Western Isles, but I have done my best. I
say to my hon. Friend that our system of scrutinising
international agreements and trade deals is at least as good as
that in other Westminster-style democracies, such as Canada,
Australia and New Zealand. Unless something major has changed in
the year I have been out of the Department, I think the UK shapes
up at least as well as those equivalent systems.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (), who is no longer in his
place, talked about a lack of expertise in the Department, but I
would say quite the opposite. I was there at the foundation of
the Department in 2016, and we deliberately made sure that we had
the expertise and the right people in place.
I am already overshooting on time, Ms Elliott. I have not done
justice to a lot of the contributions that have been made, but I
think that I have dealt with human rights. There was mention of
China and Russia. Of course, there are no plans to make a free
trade agreement with the likes of China or Russia. Trade policy
is reserved, but we engage with and consult the Scottish
Government and Welsh Government through the ministerial forum for
trade, which I used to chair and which I think I will be chairing
again.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham () talked about meaningful
debate. The Department for International Trade always has
meaningful debate, and we always have outreach to stakeholders.
People have specifically mentioned farmers. I cannot tell you the
number of outreach sessions that I did with the NFU, NFU
Scotland, NFU Cymru, the Farmers’ Union of Wales and the Ulster
Farmers’ Union. The number of Zoom and Teams meetings that I did
with them all during the pandemic was absolutely extraordinary.
We did a huge amount of outreach.
I say to hon. Members that it has been a helpful and interesting
debate. It has been useful for me to get back up to speed on
parliamentary scrutiny. I appreciate that Members want to see
more scrutiny and more debate. I am open-minded on that, and I
will have a look specifically at some of the points that my hon.
Friend the Member for Totnes raised in relation to current free
trade negotiations.
5.44pm
I thank the Minister for his response, and I will write to him
with the points that I have raised. Hon. Members might like to
feed into that.
I might just say to the hon. Gentleman from Scotland that if he
wants to come and talk to—
West Dunbartonshire.
I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. If he wants to come and talk
to the International Trade Committee about human rights, we will
raise it when we discuss the India trade agreement. I am trying
to work on a cross-party basis, and we will raise that point.
When the Minister compares us with other countries—
5.45pm
Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put
(Standing Order No. 10(14)).
|
