Trade Bill

Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2018.

(Morning)

Implementation of international trade agreements

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—

“(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing a free trade agreement only if—

(a) the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union had ratified a free trade agreement with each other immediately before exit day, or

(b) where the regulations are made before exit day, the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union have ratified a free trade agreement with each other on the day the regulations are made.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement other than a free trade agreement only if—

(a) the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union had ratified an international trade agreement with each other immediately before exit day, or

(b) where the regulations are made before exit day, the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union have ratified an international trade agreement with each other on the day the regulations are made.”

This excludes from the scope of section 2(1) those international trade agreements agreed between the UK and a third country where the corresponding agreement between the European Union and that third country has been signed but not ratified.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Ms Ryan. I look forward to the Committee proceeding at a rapid pace under your guidance. I am tabling amendments 5, 9 and 10, in my and my colleagues’ names, as on the amendment paper.

We are now talking about the implementation of the new international trade agreements to be negotiated between the UK and those third countries that already have an agreement with the European Union. The Government are seeking to appropriate to themselves the power to make regulations to implement those new agreements without any scrutiny by Parliament. I cannot state it better than the House of Commons Library briefing paper, which states that the Bill

“seeks to minimise Parliament’s role”

in this regard, in that it will make all secondary legislation under clause 2(1) subject to a negative resolution procedure only.

The rationale behind this attempt to sidestep due democratic process is that the trade agreements that the EU had previously negotiated with the third country in question had already undergone scrutiny when they were prepared for ratification—that is the argument the Minister used last week when we debated this. By the Government’s sleight of hand, he would say there needs to be no parliamentary scrutiny of any new UK trade agreement because that job will already have been done on the earlier agreement negotiated by the EU.

The Minister was particularly keen to point out that we were suggesting that all the levels of scrutiny that took place at the EU would be done away with. I think he thought he was trapping us when he asked us to agree that a good level of scrutiny had taken place, and that we should allow these measures to go through on the nod because that scrutiny had already happened. We reject that argument, and we were pleased to register that business representatives who gave oral evidence to the Committee agreed with us. The Committee will recall that.

The new trade agreements are not only legally distinct, as the Government have admitted, but may well include substantial new obligations, which will have been through no process of scrutiny whatever. That is why we demand a new approach to these agreements in subsequent amendments to schedule 2, where scrutiny is addressed. However, the provisions of clause 2(3) and (4) go even further, in that they allow the Government to sidestep scrutiny of not only those new UK agreements that are set to replace existing ones, which have been through the full scrutiny process prior to ratification, but UK trade deals that replace EU agreements, which have not even been through the process of ratification. Our amendment speaks to that extraordinary attempt to undermine democracy still further, the significance of which might be demonstrated if I give the Committee an example.

The economic partnership agreement between the EU and Japan was finalised last month. Negotiations were concluded on 7 December last year, and the text of the agreement is currently undergoing the double process of what is called legal scrubbing and translation into the official languages of the EU, so that it can proceed to signing in 2018. The agreement will subsequently undergo the due process of ratification by Japan and within the EU, including parliamentary scrutiny by the European Parliament. However, that process will not be completed until later in 2019, if experience is any guide, and therefore after the point at which the UK is no longer a member of the EU.

Japan is also one of the countries with which the Government have established a trade and investment working group. That working group held its first meeting in Tokyo during November of last year, and is tasked with advancing the trade and investment relationship of the two countries, with the eventual aim of signing a UK-Japan trade agreement at some point in the coming years.

According to the Bill, any future UK trade deal with Japan will be counted as a roll-over agreement, and will therefore escape parliamentary scrutiny altogether, because the EU and Japan will have signed a trade agreement during 2018—that is, before the UK leaves the EU. Note that that will be the case even if the future UK-Japan deal bears no resemblance to the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement. As stated earlier, the Bill makes no requirement for the future UK deal to match the EU’s agreement in any way, shape or form; the Bill requires only that the other country and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement before Brexit takes effect. The regulations to implement those new obligations will be subject to a negative resolution procedure, which is the effective negation of parliamentary scrutiny, as the Government would have us consider the new UK-Japan deal simply to be a roll-over or a grandfathered agreement.

I would like to draw attention to the oral evidence provided last Tuesday by Dr Lorand Bartels of the University of Cambridge, who spoke to exactly that issue. Dr Bartels drew particular attention to the forthcoming trade agreement with Japan, and pointed out that

“there is a fundamental difference in international law between a signed and provisionally applied agreement and a ratified agreement.”—[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 42.]

The Government would do well to heed that distinction. I hope that the Minister might accept our amendment and that he will see it, in a friendly spirit, as one that might improve the Bill.

Without the amendment, we are in danger of effectively granting the Government carte blanche to do what they like to secure a new UK-Japan deal. That would be a major concern to businesses and workers up and down the UK. Japan is a major player on the world stage, and Japanese companies are important investors in our economy, so the obligations that we, as a nation, undertake in relation to those companies are critical to the future of some of our most dynamic industries. Are the Government really telling us that we, as parliamentarians, should have no right to scrutinise those obligations?

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

Despite the fact that the Government have continued to argue that there is no need for parliamentary scrutiny in the Bill because existing deals have been subject to sufficient scrutiny in the European Union, does my hon. Friend agree that that is not the case here and therefore that it is vital in the interests of the British people that we secure such an amendment?

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention because he reinforces the very point that I am trying to establish. Despite the processes that are currently in place for scrutiny of trade deals as they proceed through Europe, and ultimately through the European Scrutiny Committee and through the House under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 procedure, we have here a situation in which a deal that was going to be concluded between the EU and another country can proceed to be signed, but not implemented. Then, in the lacuna—that is, the space between that signature and our leaving the EU—we could be confronted by the Government with a completely different set of trade relations. The trade agreement could be totally different, yet, under the Bill, the Government would have the power to sign and implement it simply because they had already signed a previous agreement before we had left the EU. That cannot be the right procedure for what could be completely new issues under that future agreement.

In one sense, the amendment is a modest one, given the seriousness of the issue it addresses. It merely seeks to exclude from the antidemocratic provisions of the Bill any regulations stemming from treaties such as a future UK-Japan trade agreement, where the correspondent EU agreement will have been signed but not yet ratified, along with all the scrutiny that ratification requires.

Other EU trade agreements could fall into this same category: the EU-Vietnam free trade agreement, the text of which is also being prepared for signing at some point this year; the EU-Singapore free trade agreement which has been initialled but held up by internal EU discussions as to whether it is a mixed agreement or exclusive EU competence, leading to the European Court of Justice ruling on this issue in May last year; and, potentially, some of the economic partnership agreements still to be finalised between the EU and different groupings of African, Caribbean and Pacific states, which were criticised so trenchantly by Professor Alan Winters of the UK Trade Policy Observatory in his oral evidence to the Committee last week. Also in this category is CETA, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the EU and Canada, which has been signed but not yet fully ratified, as it is a mixed agreement requiring ratification in each of the EU member states, in addition to the centralised EU institutions of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

Finally, the amendment tightens up the language of subsections (3) and (4) by requiring not just that the EU and the other signatory or signatories should have ratified trade agreements, prior to Brexit, but that they should have done so with each other. The Bill as it stands simply says that they must have signed “a” trade agreement; it does not say that they have to have signed it with Japan—with the corresponding party. This is ridiculous. The Minister is looking confused. If he wants to intervene, I would be happy to give way to him on this point because it is material.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I am a little confused about his position on CETA. If CETA is not yet ratified by all the EU28 countries, the amendment, if it became law, would effectively prevent the UK from transitioning CETA to be a UK-only agreement. I know that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to CETA, and he represents a minority view within his party. However, the great majority of Labour MPs welcome CETA and voted in favour of it. It is also something that has already taken effect, so the effect of his amendment would be to take us out of the provisions of CETA that have already been in place and been provisionally adopted since September.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

The Minister, of course, chose not to respond to the point I allowed him to intervene on because of his confusion.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

The hon. Gentleman asked me to explain my confusion.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am happy to address the Minister’s point and have set out the Labour Front-Bench position very clearly. He should know that the provisions of the amendment do not do what he has claimed they do. What it says is that there must be proper parliamentary scrutiny. He is denying precisely the opportunity for that to happen when a treaty has been signed but not yet ratified. The point of the amendment is to ensure that proper scrutiny can take place and that ratification can have taken place to ensure that.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

On the point about CETA, does my hon. Friend share my concerns about the implications of bringing in certain provisions of the deal and not ratifying—for example, the investor-state dispute settlement provisions? The key point is that there will not be sufficient scrutiny or consultation or an impact assessment carried out.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

My hon. Friend pre-vents me—I think that is the sort of Latin term: he goes before me. He picks up a theme I was about to come to. The ISDS procedures have been a major concern of not just parliamentarians but many other people in this country and across Europe. Any hon. Member who says that his postbag and email have not reflected that has simply not been examining them carefully enough.

On my point about the requirement to sign “a” trade agreement, clause 2(3) states:

“Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing a free trade agreement only if—

the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union were signatories to an international trade agreement immediately before exit day”.

It does not specify that it must be the same agreement, and stating the need for a treaty “with each other” would clarify that, which is what the amendment seeks to do. There is no great confusion, but there might be some because the clause is ambiguous.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are certain of their ability to roll over existing agreements, there is surely no need for the Henry VIII powers?

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Henry VIII powers show that the Government also realise that it is not simply replica provisions that are being rolled over but, in fact, new agreements that may contain substantially different clauses. Because of that, they need powers to be able to progress those agreements. The Committee tried to address that during its sitting last Thursday afternoon but the Minister has been reluctant to take the matter on board, even when pressed on how he thought, given the Government’s red lines, he would be able to roll over our current agreement with Norway on the free movement of people, and that with Turkey on the relationships we have through that country’s agreement with the EU customs union. The Minister has failed comprehensively to address those points. It would be interesting if he were to do so when he responds to this group of amendments, but I fear my hon. Friend might languish in hope rather than expectation of the privilege of hearing such a response.

The arrangements in these new agreements would be laid before Parliament for a few days without the requirement of either a debate or a vote, and at the end we would find out that the Secretary of State had appropriated the power to rewrite primary legislation by turning himself into a modern-day Henry VIII. This is not just an abstract threat. I was pleased to read the written evidence submitted to this Committee by the civil liberties organisation Liberty, which agrees with us that

“the Trade Bill presents a significant threat to the rule of law”

and human rights. Liberty argues, as do we, that the inclusion of the Henry VIII power in clause 2 is unacceptable to anyone who believes in parliamentary sovereignty. If we go back to the beginning of the process of Brexit, some people believed it was entirely about regaining parliamentary sovereignty, not about giving increased powers to the Executive.

Liberty points out that the Bill’s reference to primary legislation that is retained EU law could include such vital Acts of Parliament as the Equality Act 2010 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015, as well as legislation to combat climate change, such as the Energy Act 2013. Crucially, it could also include the Data Protection Bill currently under consideration by Parliament, which implements the EU’s general data protection regulation. We have been told on numerous occasions by businesses and their representatives from the service sector just how important it is for their post-Brexit cross-border exports to be granted what is called adequacy status under the general data protection regulation. Any change to such a crucial piece of legislation must surely be brought through Parliament and not done under the fiat of the Secretary of State.

The Government know they have exceeded the limits of what is acceptable in calling for a Henry VIII power under clause 2 and then suggesting that it is somehow appropriate for that power to come under the negative resolution procedure, the lowest form of parliamentary scrutiny. The delegated powers memorandum admits that it is a bridge too far, even for a Government such as this, stating:

“It is recognised that Parliament will want considerable assurances from the Government that this power will not be used beyond what is necessary to ensure a seamless transition of the agreements in scope.”

We have no interest whatever in “assurances from the Government”. We want the Government to show due recognition of the proper boundaries to their powers in a mature democracy such as the UK. We are not a tinpot dictatorship, and we resent the suggestion that assurances can ever represent a sufficient substitute for parliamentary democracy. That is why our amendment would remove this Henry VIII power entirely and require any modifications to primary legislation to be undertaken in the correct manner, with full parliamentary involvement.

Finally, I turn to amendment 10, where we seek to rectify the Bill’s failure to define what is meant by the vague category of international trade agreements that mainly relate to trade but are not free trade agreements. The explanatory notes suggest that this will include

“key trade agreements, and associated ancillary agreements, that the EU currently has with third countries.”

The note gives one example only, namely mutual recognition agreements. Dr Lorand Bartels, in his oral evidence, said that it might also include customs co-operation agreements that relate to trade facilitation. Ultimately, national legislation is not doing its job properly if it leaves everyone playing a guessing game regarding what it might or might not refer to, and especially not if it seeks to transfer unprecedented powers to the Executive.

We have tried to help the Government out here—I am being very helpful to the Minister this morning, if only he would realise it. Our amendment takes up the challenge from the explanatory notes and identifies the two main categories of agreement that have traditionally accompanied the EU’s free trade agreements as ancillary texts in recent years—either, in the case of mutual recognition agreements, because they help to minimise unnecessary non-tariff barriers in the regulatory sphere, or, in the case of strategic partnership agreements, because they establish social and political conditionalities to accompany the commercial aspects of the trade agreements themselves. At the end of the day, we need the Government to say what they have in mind for that category. Of course, it may be that Ministers have nothing in mind, and it would be good to know that, too. The public and the country need certainty, and the Bill does not provide it in those areas.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. Let me reassure you that, by exit day, the Government aim to have ratified all EU mixed free trade agreements that are currently provisionally applied. They include, for example, the EU-Canada CETA agreement and the Southern African Development Community co-operation in accreditation.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

If it is the Minister’s intention, as he says, to do what the amendment asks him to do, namely to apply these clauses only to agreements that have been ratified—and he says that they will all have been ratified—what problem does he have with accepting the amendment?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

The answer to that is straightforward. Although it is our intention to have ratified the agreements, that does not necessarily mean that they will have been ratified by the other EU27 countries. That is the important thing. I will come on to why the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would put at risk agreements that the UK is already party to and that UK businesses are already benefiting from.

We must remember that EU free trade agreements that contain areas of shared or member state competence must be ratified by all 28 member states before they come into force. As we know, that process can take considerable time. We drafted the clause 2 power so that signed EU free trade agreements fall within its scope. That will ensure that it can be used to implement agreements to replace those that have been signed, and which may have been provisionally applied but are yet to be ratified by the EU or the partner country.

Many such agreements are benefiting businesses and consumers as we speak. In other words, they have already taken effect. I know that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to CETA, for example, but we believe that it has benefited UK businesses considerably since it was provisionally applied and took effect in September. I know that he wants to throw away those benefits, so I remind him that most of his party sensibly sees the merits that CETA provides this country. Under his amendment, we would be unable to implement a free trade agreement that falls within this category, which would risk a cliff edge in any trading relationships covered by such an agreement.

To take another example, the UK ratified the EU’s Andean FTA with Colombia and Peru in 2014. In 2016, UK trade with those countries had a value of more than £2 billion. However, that FTA is still awaiting ratification by both the European Union and a number of EU countries. If that is still the case by exit day, the amendment would prevent the clause 2 power from being used to implement a transitioned FTA with Colombia and Peru, resulting in a likely reduction in trade flows between the UK and the Andean countries.

Let me turn to a few points that the hon. Gentleman raised elsewhere. He asserted that the agreement has to be signed by both parties. Clause 2(3), which relates to free trade agreements, states that in order for the Government to be able to use the power when implementing an agreement with a partner country, both the EU and that country must have signed a free trade agreement before exit day. In other words, both must have signed the same agreement.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

It does not say “the same”.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I think the hon. Gentleman said it was ambiguous, but the Government’s intention is clear. We have all laid it out frequently: to transition the effects of the 40-plus EU FTAs, not to renegotiate new agreements. He mentioned the cases of Norway and Turkey. As I laid out at considerable length at the Select Committee on International Trade last week—I know two of his colleagues are members of the Committee—the situation will depend largely on the UK’s future relationship with the European Union, which is a matter for the current negotiations, as Norway, Turkey and Switzerland’s relationships are very much linked to whatever our future relationship with the EU might be.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Of course, the Minister is entirely right to say that the nature of the agreements that we conclude with those countries would depend on our future relationship as we negotiate our withdrawal from the EU, but the point is that this Bill is supposed to be simply rolling over the existing agreements. The Minister has made a great deal of the fact that we want no change and are simply rolling over what exists into what comes afterwards. That is the trap that he has set for himself, and he must extricate himself.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I will just repeat what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading: the Bill is designed to be robust to the different cases of where the future UK-EU relationship might lead us following the negotiations.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Japan. In the small number of cases where the EU seeks to establish an FTA, it might be too late to go through conventional EU scrutiny here, and there are also our agreements that will now be sole EU competence. Also, they might not necessarily happen through the current EU scrutiny process. We will consider this in due course, but we are committed to Parliament having its say. Earlier this month we published a response to the trade White Paper, and the Government will consider views as we develop proposals regarding the role of Parliament in future trade agreements.

If we are to avoid trade disruption, we need to make sure that signed EU agreements that are not yet ratified by the EU, including the examples I have given, such as CETA, the Andean agreement and the partner country agreements, fall within the scope of the Bill, otherwise we will jeopardise a considerable part of the current trading relations that benefit this country so much. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, the amendment would not improve the Bill. It would actually threaten a great number of our existing trading arrangements.

It is worth remembering that a delay in ratification by another EU member state has no real relevance to the content of an agreement, or indeed to UK scrutiny of it. It is merely a reflection of that country’s domestic situation. To allow such a state of affairs as that suggested in the amendment, and to cause disruption to UK businesses, would be profoundly unsatisfactory.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Does the Minister agree that, as Alan Winters said in the evidence session when talking about business and concerns about continuity, the issue is not only transparency and scrutiny, but a recognition—we are calling for this in the amendment—that some changes required in any trade agreement will be technical or substantive? There is a need to understand the degree of what is substantive, and that is not determined anywhere. That is what we and the witnesses—business or academic—are calling for. There is nothing in the Bill that ensures the scrutiny of what is substantive and what changes should be allowed.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. By the way, I cannot remember whether he was in favour of CETA or against it, or what his individual position was within the Labour party on some of these agreements.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I wasn’t present.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

Of course—the hon. Gentleman was not yet elected at that time.

The Government’s intention is clear. This is a technical roll-over: there will not be substantive changes to the agreement. However, that is not what this amendment deals with. The amendment talks about making sure that all deals that have yet to be ratified are outside the scope of the Bill. Our position is clear: agreements that have been signed but not yet ratified should be within the scope of the Bill.

On amendment 9, the clause 2 power is a restricted so-called Henry VIII power. It allows only for the amendment of primary legislation that is retained EU law. As I think we all now know, retained EU law is EU law that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill converts into UK law, as well as the EU-derived domestic law that the Bill preserves. It is a very restricted power.

Because transition trade agreements will have been implemented substantially through EU law, we may need to amend retained EU law if we are to implement any technical changes but keep these agreements operable beyond exit day, which clearly must be a goal for all us. That is why it has been necessary to ensure that the clause 2 power can amend a specific part of primary legislation. Removing this aspect of the power would jeopardise its ability to ensure continuity and future operability in our existing trade agreements.

We should also note that, as little primary legislation is retained EU law, this is a highly restricted so-called Henry VIII power. Let me be clear that this power cannot be used to amend the vast body of primary legislation that is not retained EU law—that is in line with our intention to use the power only to maintain the effects of our existing trade agreements.

We have also constrained the power in other ways, by including a sunset clause that I know we will debate in later amendments, and by preventing it from being used to implement a free trade agreement with a country that has no such agreement with the EU before exit day.

Amendment 10 would narrow the definition of a trade agreement to the extent that certain agreements that would be widely accepted as instrumental aspects of trade relationships, such as bilateral procurement agreements, would be ruled out of scope.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

The Minister mentioned a few times proper parliamentary scrutiny of future trade agreements but, clearly, the provision confirming that there will be parliamentary scrutiny in future should not be in the Bill.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I am absolutely clear that this Bill relates to the transition of our existing trade agreements. How we approach future trade agreements will be a matter for future consideration. I mentioned earlier that we will look carefully at the responses to the consultation. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman has views, we are keen to hear them. Indeed, we will be seeking views from across this House on what Parliament’s views on these matters might be, but that is entirely a matter for the future.

Amendment 10 would clearly create an unacceptable risk that agreements essential to trade could not be effectively provisioned. If the members of the Committee are concerned about the scope of this power, please let me reassure them that, as I referred to earlier, we have already set out in clause 2 restrictions on the scope of the power.

Given these constraints, the existing drafting of the power, and our clear and firm assurances that this power is not intended to be used for the implementation of future trade agreements, it would be strange to include this amendment, which sets out the required procedure for future trade agreements. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 5.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am not prepared to withdraw and I propose that we move to a vote.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with—

(a) the provisions of international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom;

(b) the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015;

(c) the primacy of human rights law;

(d) international human rights law and international humanitarian law;

(e) the United Kingdom’s obligations on workers’ rights and labour standards as established by but not limited to –

(i) the commitments under the International Labour Organisation’s Declaration on Fundamental Rights at Work and its Follow-up Conventions; and

(ii) the fundamental principles and rights at work inherent in membership of the International Labour Organisation;

(a) women’s rights and are in accordance with the United Kingdom’s obligations established by but not limited to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women;

(b) children’s rights and are in accordance with the United Kingdom’s obligations established by but not limited to the Convention on the Rights of the Child;

(c) the United Kingdom’s environmental obligations in international law and as established by but not limited to—

(i) the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;

(ii) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); and

(iii) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; and

(d) the sovereignty of Parliament, the legal authority of UK courts, the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law.”

This would ensure that international trade agreements do not conflict with the provisions of international laws or conventions on human rights and the environment, or with the rule of law.

The amendment is designed to apply to regulations implementing all UK trade agreements, of whatever sort. It is a high-level amendment that sets out our trade policy in the proper context of respect for human rights, environmental sustainability and the rule of law. I hope therefore that the Government will have no difficulty in accepting it as a friendly amendment.

The casual observer might think it bizarre that a trade agreement could endanger human rights. Luckily, help is at hand. For those members of the Committee who have not read it, I heartily recommend the comprehensive report of the United Nations independent expert Alfred de Zayas for the UN Human Rights Council, dated 12 July 2016, in which he enumerates the many ways in which trade agreements may indeed infringe on human rights and sadly have done so in the past.

I will not take the Committee through the whole report, but suffice to say that de Zayas examines the threat posed to human rights by international trade and investment across not only civil and political rights, but economic, social and cultural rights such as the rights to work, health, education and one’s own culture. In all cases, de Zayas offers examples of where international trade and investment activities can threaten the enjoyment of human rights. He warns against creating any new agreement that might exacerbate the harm that has already been done as a result of failure to pay proper heed to the nexus between trade and investment, and human rights.

I will draw out one recommendation in the UN independent expert’s report, because it is so utterly pertinent to our discussion of the Bill. His first and foremost recommendation to Parliaments around the world states:

“No parliament should approve trade agreements without exercising oversight functions and examining the compatibility of the agreements with human rights treaty obligations in the light of impact assessments.”

That sentence might usefully be read out, I suggest, at the beginning of every sitting of the Committee and at any subsequent debate on trade policy held by this House.

The amendment seeks to ensure that future UK trade agreements will never be able to undermine human rights in the ways that Alfred de Zayas describes so powerfully for the UN Human Rights Council. In particular, proposed new sub-paragraph (c) aims to establish a proper hierarchy in cases of conflict between human rights law and the treaty obligations of international trade agreements, so that human rights law will always take priority. That is in line with the Vienna declaration and the programme of action adopted by the world conference on human rights on 25 June 1993.

Sub-paragraph (c) also speaks to the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, namely in this case that states are obliged to fulfil their human rights treaty obligations in good faith and should never enter into any trade or other commercial agreements that would undermine or in any other way render impossible the fulfilment of their human rights treaty obligations.

Our amendment goes further, however, in light of the fact that we have higher-order principles that are not related to human rights alone. We also require the UK’s international trade agreements to be consistent with international humanitarian law, which is the body of law governing the conduct of war, so that there can be no question of the UK entering into any agreement with a trading partner that might undermine such a critical pillar of the international order.

One obvious example of what happens when that principle is ignored can be found in the ongoing difficulty caused at European level by Morocco’s attempt to include the fishing rights of the Sahrawi people in its trade agreement with the EU. The trading relationship between the two partners has been critically undermined as a result of the European Court of Justice 2016 ruling that Morocco has no right to negotiate a fishing agreement with the EU covering the waters of the occupied Western Sahara, a territory that the UN has confirmed must be granted the right to self-determination, but where the Sahrawi population has lived under Moroccan military occupation for more than four decades.

Just this month, the ECJ advocate-general publicly stated that the EU fisheries deal with Morocco should be declared invalid because of its failure to accord with international humanitarian law. I am sure that, like us, the Government would not wish any future UK trade agreement to fall into a similar trap.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

Trade deals often impact a wide range of public policy areas. For example, a deal done with a foreign state can impact on the provision of services such as transport. The powers outlined in the Bill could potentially remove a duty on service providers to make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities. According to Liberty, that would make access to transport more difficult for one in five of the UK population. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we build the foundations for our future trade policy—I understand that the Minister argues with that—it is vital that the legislation contains provisions that protect such human rights, which are incredibly important for a huge number of people?

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

It is incredibly important to include an ethical dimension to any human rights legislation in the Bill. We also require all future UK trade agreements to be consistent with the sustainable development goals adopted by the UN General Assembly in September 2015.

The importance of those goals needs no further elaboration but may be a useful point on how the world’s poorest countries have been marginalised from the gains of global trade over the past 40 years. Although emerging economies such as China have clearly been able to use the export opportunities of a globalised economy to develop into leading actors in many fields of trade and investment, the countries that are home to the bottom billion, as the poorest have been called, have been left behind.

That is precisely what the World Bank’s former research director, Paul Collier, warned of in his best-selling book “The Bottom Billion”, where he concluded that reliance on trade is more likely to lock yet more of the bottom billion countries into the natural resource trap than to save them through export diversification.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s last argument. Millions of people have been lifted out of abject poverty because of trade. I would like to make clear that this is a friendly amendment, as the hon. Lady described it, for future trading agreements, rather than the agreements that the Minister has referred to.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

It is important that we establish the principles of human rights within our trade agreements.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I entirely agree with the principle that human rights are important. I just want to be clear whether we are talking about existing agreements being transitioned, as dealt with by the Bill to which the hon. Lady has tabled her amendment, or, as her remarks indicate, about future agreements some way in the distance.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I am talking about both because human rights are the basis of principle, not a point, so my proposal covers both.

To prove the point, the world’s least developed countries saw their share of global merchandise fall still further, to under 1%, in 2015. Africa has seen its share of global trade cut by a half over the past 30 years. It is our task to ensure that the poorest countries can benefit from trade and investment. To that end, the sustainable development goals included three specific targets on trade, set out for all countries to follow, which include promoting a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable, multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organisation.

Anna McMorrin (Labour, Cardiff North)

In his speech to the World Trade Organisation in Buenos Aires, the Secretary of State reaffirmed his commitment to trade as a main tool for development, which is fantastic. The Government should therefore be keen to support the amendment, which reaffirms the UK’s commitment to the provisions of the SDGs, human rights, workers’ rights and environmental protections, which are key elements of development, growth and stability, as the Secretary of State said.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I absolutely agree. The sustainable development goals include the capacity to increase significantly the exports of developing countries, with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020. The SDGs can also allow for timely and lasting duty-free and quota-free market access for the least developed countries, consistent with WTO decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from the least developed countries are transparent, simple and contribute to facilitating market access.

The Labour party made a manifesto commitment to guaranteeing the world’s least developed countries continued duty-free and quota-free access to the UK market, post-Brexit. I am pleased that the Government agreed to match that pledge, but we need to go considerably further if we are to ensure that our trade policies really contribute to the realisation of the sustainable development goals. That is why this is such an important part of the amendment, and one that I am sure the Government will support.

One of the most powerful ways to ensure that international trade leads to poverty reduction and enhanced life chances is to ensure that working people benefit fully from the opportunities it offers. To that end, we wish to ensure that all new trade agreements are fully consistent with the UK obligations on workers’ rights and labour standards, starting with the International Labour Organisation’s declaration of fundamental rights at work, and its eight core conventions covering freedom of association, forced labour, child labour and discrimination. However, simply linking to those conventions is far from sufficient, as has been seen in so many cases where trade agreements have led to an undermining of other labour rights. We require a deeper commitment to principles and rights at work that are inherent in the UK’s membership of the ILO, to ensure that there can be no race to the bottom in labour standards as a result of the UK’s new international trade agreements.

Again, I have no doubt that the Government will share our desire to keep labour standards high. The Secretary of State for International Trade, who has not always been known as a champion of workers’ rights, made the case in a debate on exiting the European Union and global trade in the House on 6 July last year. I should be pleased to quote him at length, which is not something that I find myself doing too often:

“There are those who would make the case for a Britain with lower regulatory standards and fewer protections in place across the economy for the environment, for workers and for consumers. Let me tell the House that Britain will not put itself at the low-cost, low-quality end of the spectrum, as it would make no sense for this country economically to do so, nor morally would it give us the leadership we seek. I believe there is no place for bargain-basement Britain.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2017; Vol. 626, c. 1365.]

Encouraged by the Secretary of State’s new-found identity as a defender of high standards and workers’ rights, the Government will, I am sure, have no trouble in supporting this part of the amendment.

Equally, all new trade agreements must be consistent with women’s rights, not least because it has often been women workers who have suffered most in the international trading system.

Integration into global supply chains promised much to women workers in countries where they had not previously enjoyed other economic opportunities. In Bangladesh, for instance, formal employment in the export-oriented garment industry has provided millions of women workers with a regular source of independent income, which has in turn allowed them to enhance their social status and political participation. When done properly, trade can be a source of empowerment, yet many of those working women have found themselves trapped in dead-end jobs characterised by poverty wages and dangerous working conditions. That is a particular threat to workers at the bottom of global value chains producing goods for distant retailers that have ultimate power and control over the conditions under which their suppliers operate. The ILO has noted that all too often trade via global supply chains

“tends to generate economic benefits… (in terms of high productivity), but not necessarily for workers”.

For far too many women in the global economy, the promise of empowerment is eclipsed by the grim realities of exploitation. Trade agreements must be consistent with children’s rights, with the UK’s environmental obligations, and with the provisions of other international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom. Surely the Government will agree with us on these points. They must respect CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—as well as the convention on biological diversity. None of these are idle concerns. The European Commission’s official impact assessment for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership recognises that under every potential outcome, the proposed EU-US agreement would create what it called dangers for natural resources and for the preservation of biodiversity.

Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South)

The hon. Lady refers to TTIP and new trade deals; I am sorry for pressing this point, but they are not the point of this Bill. I agree with her on all the standards that she wishes to see in place, and I do not want Britain to race to the bottom, but that is not the point of the Bill; it is for future Bills. Please could we stick to the roll-over agreements that we are talking about in this Bill?

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I remind the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South that the opening line of the Bill says that its aim is to

“Make provision about the implementation of international trade agreements”

per se. It is about principle, and about the fact that the Bill is a legal entity in itself.

Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South)

It is not.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

It is the Trade Bill. These principles, including on human rights, should be held dear; if they are not held dear by Government Members, they are at least by Opposition Members. Environmental degradation has just been dismissed as collateral damage when it comes to international trade agreements. That is no basis on which to construct a new trade policy for a United Kingdom.

Hannah Bardell (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

The hon. Lady makes an excellent speech. Does she agree that we all have deep concerns about fair trade? There is already a creep in supermarkets looking at fairly traded products, rather than Fairtrade products, and we will see significantly more of that if the Bill passes without amendment. Given that many of our constituencies are Fairtrade towns, that should be of significant concern to all of us.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Fair trade should absolutely be a key element of any Bill that deals with trade.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

My hon. Friend quite properly reminds the Committee that the amendment is in scope—otherwise it would not have been selected; the Chair would have ruled it out of scope—because of the words at the front of the Bill. The amendment would of course have an impact on the roll-over agreements, as the Government call them, which are legally distinct, new agreements. If these provisions were put into law, they would apply to all new agreements that we completed in the future. I do not doubt that many Government Members would be happy to see included these provisions about human rights, equality and the rights of children—things that David Cameron, when he was Prime Minister, was keen to negotiate as one of the leaders on the SDGs. Would Government Members accept that the amendment is not only in scope, but could have a positive effect on future conclusions of trade agreements?

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous. To amplify that point, I think it was Nick Dearden who, during the oral evidence sessions, spoke about modern trade deals and the huge opportunity presented to us. It is almost a no-brainer to include the things listed in the amendment. There is almost an assumption that they should be included, and that is why we are putting forward the amendment. These are modern trade deals. We have an opportunity to update the arrangements. This is a simple amendment.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

Finally, our amendment demands that the UK’s international trade agreements be fully consistent with the legal authority of UK courts, the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that the amendment is designed to prevent the undermining of our legal system by the introduction of investor- state dispute settlement mechanisms in any future UK trade agreement.

ISDS represents an extraordinary transfer of power to foreign investors who gain exclusive rights, unavailable to any domestic investor, to sue host Governments in their own private judicial system. The investment protections they are granted go far beyond what they could be entitled to expect in any of their domestic courts. That has in turn spawned a massive industry of trade lawyers and hedge funds keen to speculate on the massive gains to be made from suing a country over any new rule or regulation that might be construed as being unfair to multinational companies operating there.

There have been more than 800 ISDS cases brought by foreign investors against their host countries. Some Governments have been forced to back down from introducing perfectly reasonable social or environmental measures. In the first ISDS case brought against Germany under the energy charter treaty, the Swedish power company Vattenfall sued in relation to its new coal-fired power plant outside Hamburg. The authorities were forced to drop the environmental conditions designed to protect the water quality of the River Elbe. In the infamous case brought against Canada under the ISDS provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the US company Ethyl successfully sued the Canadian Government over their ban on the use of the fuel additive MMT. The ban had been introduced on public health grounds to guard against the inhalation of particles of manganese, which is known to be a neurotoxin. When the ISDS tribunal ruled against Canada’s procedural defence, it settled the claim by paying $13 million to Ethyl, rescinding the ban and issuing a public apology.

The prospect of being on the receiving end of such an attack generates its own regulatory chill, dissuading countries from upgrading their regulatory regime for fear of being sued for hundreds of millions of pounds in front of wholly unpredictable tribunals where the adjudicators often turn out to be working out as counsel for their corporate clients at the same time. The inclusion of ISDS or its equivalents in the most controversial bilateral trade agreements of recent years has been one of the key factors behind the loss of legitimacy and public support for international trade in general. We would do well to address that fact at this juncture.

The EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström was not exaggerating when she complained that ISDS had become the most toxic acronym in Europe. It turned her TTIP dreams into a nightmare, and it will do the same for any future UK trade agreements that seek to include it. There is absolutely no justification for the introduction of ISDS in any trade or investment agreement negotiated for the UK, and there is no need for it either. The UK holds more foreign investment stock than any other EU member state and boasts a higher score than any other European country on the index measuring the quality of judicial processes. Foreign investors can have full confidence in the UK judicial system and can rely on our domestic courts for any redress they seek as a result of unfair treatment, just as we do.

The previous coalition Government commissioned an official cost-benefit analysis of the prospect of extending ISDS rights to North American investors at the outset of the TTIP negotiations in 2013. The report they received is still well worth reading. It found that there would be no benefits to the UK economy from introducing ISDS, only costs. With that rebuke ringing in our ears, I trust that the Government will vote in favour of the amendment, as they should.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I strongly support the hon. Lady’s point about the value of human rights and the importance of workers’ rights and environmental standards, not only as we trade abroad but in how we deal with our domestic politics. That is very important. I am sorry that, at the tail end of her point, she started to suggest that one side of the House somehow does not agree with that. In fairness, there is a range of views across the spectrum, but the principles about human rights and workers’ rights and so on are there.

I cannot support the hon. Lady’s amendment, not because of the values that she talked about at some length but because, in her own words, the amendment seeks to change any future trading agreement. On a point of principle, I do not think that is something the Committee has the power, or is in the position, to do. On that principle, I will vote against the amendment, and I hope other Members do the same.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South for her interesting and wide-ranging speech. I wholly agree with her strong comments on human rights and the UK being a leader in that space and the wide range of fields referred to in the amendment. In fact, I think all Conservative Members wholly endorse that.

However, I assure the hon. Lady that the amendment is unnecessary. The UK has always sought to comply with international law, and we will continue to uphold our strong commitments to human rights and labour and environmental standards around the world, as well as to the sustainable development goals, gender rights, disability rights, endangered species, fighting climate change and so on. The process of exiting the EU will not alter that position, and we will still be bound by our commitments under international law. Both the Secretary of State and I stated in the Chamber on Second Reading that our aim in undertaking the transition programme is to seek continuity in the effects of existing trade agreements. This is not an opportunity to renegotiate the terms of those agreements, which have already been scrutinised by Parliament.

The hon. Lady referenced least developed countries. I remind her that, despite her warm words, she voted against the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill on Second Reading, which is currently being considered in another Committee and which enshrines a system of trade preferences for developing countries as we leave the EU, to make sure that those powers are in place for the UK to offer unilateral trade preferences. Unfortunately, if her vote on that Bill had been the majority view in the House earlier this month, the UK would not have a system of trade preferences for developing-world countries as we exit the EU.

The amendment is unnecessary, particularly in relation to our compliance with international law.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

The Government recently published a 25-year plan for the environment, committing the UK to:

“Leave a lighter footprint on the global environment by enhancing sustainability and supporting zero deforestation supply chains.”

Does the Minister agree that it is vital that the Bill is amended to ensure that the Government can meet that commitment, and to ensure that trade policy does not result in a reduction in environmental standards and protections or in an unacceptable, unsustainable global footprint?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

Let me be absolutely clear: there is no intention to reduce environmental standards. In fact, the point of the 25-year environment plan was to enshrine this country’s commitment to the environment over a very long period of time. I heartily commend that plan, but it is not part of today’s Bill. I am happy to underline that we will, of course, remain compliant with international law. On the basis of that assurance, the broader applicability of international law, and the UK’s commitments in all such areas, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I will, of course, take an intervention from the hon. Member for Warwick.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

My constituency is Warwick and Leamington. They get funny about that in my area.

Based on my humble experience, I do not think we have the same kind of reputation for environmental safeguards as certain other countries—our history is weak in that area. One of the reasons for tabling the amendment was to ensure that those sorts of standards are included, and that we are putting that forward for our own protection, as well as the offensive interests of other Governments. The Minister may have a different view from mine. I understand that he has lobbied in Brazil on behalf of certain oil giants such as BP and Shell, so he will take a different stance. I believe that it is an important issue, which is why we tabled this important amendment.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that late but wide-ranging intervention. Let me try to deal with each of his points. On Brazil, it is quite clearly on the record that the discussions were to ensure a level playing field for UK companies, not to change Brazilian domestic requirements in a way that would harm the environment in Brazil.

Secondly, we have an exemplary record on the environment over the last seven years. The UK was a leader in the Paris agreement and the negotiations behind it, as the shadow Secretary of State will know only too well—he takes a keen interest in that and is even the party’s spokesperson. When it comes to recent regulations such as the banning of microbeads and efforts to prevent plastics from entering the environment, the Government have an exemplary record. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Bradford South to withdraw her amendment.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

We will push the amendment to a vote.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not in any way restrict the ability—

(a) to make public services at a national or local level subject to public monopoly;

(b) to make public services at a national or local level subject to exclusive rights granted to private operators; and

(c) to bring public services at a national or local level back into the public sector for delivery by public sector employees.”

This would ensure that international trade agreements cannot restrict future decisions in respect of the delivery of public services.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. Amendment 7 seeks once and for all to exclude public services from the remit of any future UK trade agreements. That nut has proved extremely difficult to crack in all of the multilateral and bilateral international trade negotiations that the UK has been involved with to date. Given the object lesson we have just been taught by the collapse of Carillion and the deep uncertainty it has caused in relation to the outsourcing of public services, we are more determined than ever to get it right for the future.

Service trade negotiations were introduced to the multilateral trading system through the general agreement on trade in services. GATS was part of the package of multilateral agreements negotiated in the Uruguay round of global trade talks, which took place between 1986 and 1994 and led to the creation of the World Trade Organisation. Each country submitted a schedule of GATS commitments detailing the level of liberalisation it would offer to other WTO members on a sector-by-sector basis and across the four different modes of service delivery—namely, cross-border supply, consumption abroad, commercial presence and movement of natural persons. That was done by what is known as positive listing, which means that only sectors put forward for liberalisation would be subject to the GATS market access and national treatment provisions. EU member states were able to register their own national limitations to the levels of liberalisation listed for each sector, either by withholding sectors from liberalisation entirely or by attaching national conditions to the opening of their markets. That means that, across the 160 service sectors, the EU’s schedule of commitments runs to more than 540 pages in length.

Services have become an important element in the bilateral trade negations that have proliferated since the demise of the WTO’s Doha round. Contrary to what is often heard in the media, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the EU and Canada—CETA—included the most far-reaching commitments to services trade liberalisation ever made by the EU. They were made by a negative listing, which means that only sectors specifically listed for protection from liberalisation would be excluded from the deal’s market access and national treatment provisions. That is commonly known as the “list it or lose it” approach, and it makes for a much more extensive liberalisation outcome than the positive list approach that has been used in multilateral services negotiations.

In all of those negotiations, there has been considerable concern about the potential for public services to fall foul of WTO rules on monopolies, competition and market opening. To that end, the original GATS text included an exemption for services

“supplied in the exercise of government authority”.

That exemption has been carried over into most other bilateral agreements. We sometimes hear people who are new to this issue claiming that this provides a carve-out for public services. However, the exemption for services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority is closely defined to mean only services that are supplied on a non-commercial basis and without any competition from the private sector. There is consensus among all trade policy experts that it is a carve-out not for public services, but only for specific state functions, such as the judiciary, the army or the police.

The detailed paper on the subject published by Professor Markus Krajewski notes that academics and trade policy practitioners alike now accept that most public services, including social, health and educational services, as well as network-based and universal services, are not covered by the exemption clause. The EU agrees. The European Commission has confirmed that public services such as the NHS are not protected by the governmental authority exemption. The relevant passage from the Commission’s proposal to modernise the EU’s treatment of public services in future EU trade agreements states:

“The scope of the GATS includes services which may be considered by each Member to be ‘public services’. A wide variety of so-called public services, including certain activities relating to education, healthcare, postal, telecommunications, waste collection, water provision, electricity, transport, etc as they exist today in many countries, including in most EU Member States will have certain commercial aspects and may be provided to some extent by private operators on a competitive basis. Where this is the case, they would normally fall within the scope of the GATS as representing ‘tradable’ services.”

Recognising that GATS included public services, the EU set about registering a horizontal limitation in its schedule of commitments—the so-called public utilities exemption. This was intended to allow EU member states to maintain public monopolies for some public services and to have the flexibility to outsource others to the private sector—something that today seems a great deal less attractive than it once did, following the collapse of Carillion. Most importantly, the EU’s public utilities exemption was designed to allow member states to bring back failed outsourcings into the public service without any fear of breaking WTO rules on restricting markets that had already been committed to liberalisation.

However, the EU’s legal team soon came to realise that the public utilities exemption was itself defective. Two papers that it published in 2011 confirmed that public services were still potentially exposed to the trade liberalisation regime, as incorporated in both multilateral and bilateral agreements. The same concern applied to the major bilateral trade deals under negotiation with the US and Canada—TTIP and CETA—as well as the negotiations that are continuing outside the WTO framework towards a plurilateral trade and services agreement, known as TISA, in which we understand the UK is currently engaged only by virtue of its membership of the EU. The Minister might want to confirm whether the UK is engaged in those negotiations when he responds. In all these cases, the inclusion of public services is a major cause of concern, not least among trade unions, which have come out against all such deals unless there can be an unequivocal guarantee that public services will not be included.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that modern-day international trade agreements extend into a wide range of public policy making and it is therefore essential that our Government maintain the capacity to deliver public services?

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

That is absolutely right. It is at the heart of amendment 7 that our Government and this country retain the right to decide who runs vital national services. Our concern from the body of evidence over the years—I have started to run through where some of those concerns come from—is that there is doubt about whether that will continue to be possible.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am fully behind the principle of the amendment. Scotland still leads the way in terms of Scottish workers being employed under public ownership. We are looking at a public sector energy company and a public sector bid to run the ScotRail franchise. I completely support that public sector ethos. As was mentioned, the Bill is supposed to be about existing trade agreements being rolled over into UK law. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that even under existing EU trade deals, these public service operations are at risk, meaning that that would be a concern when any one of those deals was rolled over?

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

If the amendment is agreed, we are making sure that there is no prospect of there being a problem or concern about any of these things arising. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the important elements of public services that are still in the public sector in parts of the United Kingdom, because in the Labour manifesto last year that is certainly what we envisaged for the whole country.

We believe that those with concerns are right to be concerned, given that the European Commission has said the following about including public services in the multilateral services regime in its proposal on modernising the system:

“Indeed, it is important for the EU that GATS does cover public services, as the EU, for whom services represent 70% of the overall economy, and where EU harmonisation has led to the liberalisation of former public monopolies in areas such as telecoms and postal services, is also the world’s largest exporter of services and seeks access to other markets.”

That is why public reassurances and best endeavour commitments from Ministers are not the issue here. Legal certainty and absolute exemption are required, which again answers the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. Amendment 7 seeks to exclude, once and for all, public services from the fear of being trapped by world trade rules, by prohibiting Ministers passing regulations to implement the trade agreement if that agreement in any way restricts the ability to keep public services in public hands or to bring them back into public hands once they have been outsourced.

In the wake of the disastrous collapse of Carillion, I would hope that the common sense of the amendment is so overwhelming that it will receive support from the Government. We cannot have a situation where the outsourcing of public services to the private sector might end up entangled in trade rules so that future Administrations find themselves in any way restricted in bringing those public services back into the public sector for delivery by public sector employees.

When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the International Trade Committee last February, he was invited by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) to repeat the words:

“The NHS is off limits in any future trade deal.”

In reply, the Secretary of State stated:

“Let me tell you, as the person who will be in charge of negotiating that, it would not be happening on my watch.”

Let us hope that the Secretary of State’s commitment will encourage the Government to vote in support of the amendment and to ensure that our NHS and our other vital public services will never be pawns to be bargained away in international trade negotiations.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I will expand briefly on the point I made in my intervention. We fully support the principles behind amendment 7. Scottish Water is still in public ownership in Scotland. Caledonian MacBrayne ferries recently went out to tender and there was a public sector bid, so that remains run by the public sector. Going forward, the Scottish Government are looking at the ScotRail franchise possibly coming into the public sector, as well as public sector energy companies. Of course, we all value the different national health services across the constituent countries of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central touched on Carillion, which is certainly a good example of how private does not always equal better. We have now seen the latest east coast main line fiasco—Stagecoach and Virgin were able to walk away and not honour their commitment to the public purse in the franchise moneys they were meant to pay. It is clear that that service has been run successfully in the public sector before and there is no reason why that could not be done again. We would certainly like to see more rail franchises operated by the public sector.

For those reasons, we would welcome these protections being added to the Bill. I would like to think that the amendment is not really required, but there does sometimes seem to be a confused position in the Labour party. The leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), has suggested that we cannot be in the single market and have rail nationalisation. This is not correct, given how many national rail companies operate in the UK and run UK franchises. Clearly, we can have nationalisation and be in the EU single market.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to clarify. I believe that the contention is not that we cannot have a nationalised industry as a member of the single market; it is that once the sector has been liberalised, it then becomes very difficult to take it back under national control. That is the point my party’s leader was making, not the one he suggests.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I would still contend that there is a confused viewpoint regarding the single market and how it aligns with membership or otherwise of the EU. Again, where the rail franchising system in the United Kingdom has been liberalised, clearly there is no impediment to the Scottish Government making a public sector bid. That proves that it can happen within the EU single market.

In conclusion, I welcome any commitment to strengthen the public sector ethos and public sector ownership, and I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

As I have mentioned, the aim of continuity means that this exercise will not be used as a back-door way to alter how the UK delivers public services. I make it clear to the Committee that the protection of public service delivery is written into many EU trade agreements and they already include safeguards to protect EU country Governments from being forced to privatise their services. That protection has worked for 20 years.

I will turn to some of the individual points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Sefton Central talked about the agreement on government procurement. Just to be clear, the GPA operates on a positive list basis—that is, only areas listed by GPA members in their GPA schedules are covered by the GPA’s obligations.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will know, as I do, that negotiations on the trade in services agreement are ongoing at the WTO, but are not making a great deal of progress. The UK’s position, as it currently stands, will be represented in those discussions by the European Union.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

If the Government will not support the amendment today, will the Minister provide assurances to the Committee and to the British people that the Bill will not put vital public services, such as the NHS, at risk of piecemeal privatisations that are ultimately detrimental to those who rely on those services?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

We have been clear that many EU trade agreements presently provide those protections and we have been clear that this exercise of transitioning existing EU free trade agreements will not be used for any back-door attempt to do anything to the NHS that would prevent our right to regulate domestically for the NHS. This party has a proud record of defending and protecting the national health service, and that will continue.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Does the Minister recall that during the drafting of CETA, while Germany put a clear exemption into the agreement’s text that it would not allow any privatisation of its health service in that way, the UK failed to do so? One reason the ancillary document—the interpretative document—was necessary was to make that clear, but that document was not binding in law. As such, the Government do not have a good record on this, do they?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

The hon. Gentleman and I had an extensive debate on this matter in February. We are satisfied that the protections in CETA are adequate for protecting our national health service and our right to regulate in the domestic market.

It has long been an aspect of UK Government policy under successive Governments to make sure that trade agreements work for services. That is actually in the UK national interest—80% of our country’s GDP comes from services and 79% of our employment comes from services—and has been an objective of successive Governments.

I remember when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister under Tony Blair. The Blair Government rightly ensured, in particular within the European Union, that services were part of the trade agenda. Although the hon. Gentleman has changed his opinion on many matters in the intervening 10 years since Mr Blair left office, I am a little surprised that he and his colleague now seem to be arguing against the UK doing more to ensure that services are a key part of future trade deals.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

Of course I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, to clarify where he is with Tony Blair.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

My relationship with our former Prime Minister is probably not in scope for the Committee. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party and the Opposition in Committee do not in any way want to stop the very valuable exports that our service industries make to the rest of the world. We want to see them flourish, but we want them to do so within a framework that does not prejudice the protections that should properly—as the Minister has acknowledged—be in place for public services and the public sector in this country, and the right to protect our national health service and to ensure that public procurement can be done properly.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I think we shall leave it at that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification of where he stands in relation to Tony Blair.

Protecting the UK’s right to regulate public services is, of course, of the utmost importance. UK public services are protected by specific exceptions and reservations in EU trade agreements where relevant. As we leave the EU, the UK will continue to ensure that rigorous protections are included in all trade agreements that it is party to. On that basis, I ask the Opposition to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

I will not be drawn on everything the Minister said, but I will go back to what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said in his short speech. The amendment and the Bill are about trade agreements and not about the single market. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North made it clear on Second Reading exactly what our relationship with the single market will be once we have left the European Union—if we are not a member of the European Union, it is not possible to have a say in the rules, so we are therefore not a full member whatever our relationship with the single market. He explained it extremely well.

The amendment is about the relationship with future trade agreements and about having the right protections for public services. I go back to what I said in my speech: the amendment is about ensuring that we have the ability in law to bring services back in, in the light of Carillion, whether they are to do with the NHS or other services. In the public interest—the public good—this country should have the ability to decide where its public services are run.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Back in February last year, as I understand it, the Minister told the International Trade Committee that the NHS would remain off limits in trade negotiations and that he would not sacrifice the Government’s right to regulate public services. Does my hon. Friend therefore share my surprise that the Minister is not keen to include the amendment in the Bill?

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

I share my hon. Friend’s surprise because, as I said in my speech, repeated public reassurances and “best endeavour” commitments from Ministers are not the issue; legal certainty and absolute exemption are required. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, perhaps he will tell us now that he will bring forward his own amendment later in our proceedings to achieve exactly that.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

We are talking here about future trade agreements, on which I have clearly laid out our position. I will just pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. I think he is incorrect in what he said on any evidence I might have given to the International Trade Committee last February. To be clear—and perhaps to my regret—I did not appear in front of that Committee until last week.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

It is odd to be intervened on about the comments of another Member. I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington meant the Secretary of State. I thought all Ministers spoke as one in Government, although we have seen enough evidence in recent days, weeks and months to suggest that that is not entirely true. Today is perhaps the latest example, with the leaked reports from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. We are wandering, and I think the Chair might have something to say on that.

Over the weekend, the Prime Minister left a degree of ambiguity in her words on this issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North quite rightly reminded us, the German Government felt sufficiently concerned about CETA to exclude healthcare from its provisions. We should be very mindful of that. The Government are keen to, in their words, roll over that agreement, although with the acknowledgement that that may involve technical changes. Perhaps we can all agree that it will become a corresponding agreement.

There is a body of evidence from across the years showing the need for cast-iron guarantees to protect public services, so that they can be delivered in the public good and brought back in house where necessary. Without it being legally binding in the way we have set out in the amendment, it is difficult to see how that can be achieved. I will ask again: if the Government will not support the amendment, will they bring forward their own amendment that delivers on exactly that point later in our proceedings? There will be further opportunities in this House and in the other place to do so.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(4A) Regulations may only be made under section 2(1) if—

(a) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are consistent with standards for food safety and quality as set and administered by—

(i) the Department of Health;

(ii) the Food Standards Agency; and

(iii) any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that mechanisms and bodies charged with enforcement of standards for food safety and quality have the capacity to absorb any extra requirement which may arise from the implementation of the agreement;

(c) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are consistent with policy to achieve reduction in the risk of disease or contamination as set and administered by—

(i) the Department of Health;

(ii) the Food Standards Agency; and

(iii) any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(d) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are consistent with achieving improvements in public health through any food policy priorities set and administered by—

(i) the Department of Health;

(ii) the Food Standards Agency; and

(iii) any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(e) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are compliant with policy to achieve targets for farm antibiotic reduction set by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate;

(f) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are compliant with retained EU law

(g) any food or food products to which the provisions of the international trade agreement apply meet standards of labelling, indication of provenance, and packaging specified by the Food Standards Agency.

(4B) A statutory instrument containing regulations of the Secretary of State under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”.

This would ensure that international trade agreements maintain or enhance food safety standards in the UK.

The amendment speaks to the critical issue of food and food safety, in the context of our future international third country agreements. No Committee member needs me to tell them of the central importance of maintaining food safety standards in this country and ensuring that the British people can have confidence in those standards. However, perhaps it is necessary to provide some explanation of why this has become such a totemic issue in the debate around international trade.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

In her opening remarks, the hon. Lady has talked about reassuring the British people. I note that the amendment mentions the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency. Is it not deficient because it does not recognise the devolved Administrations? I wonder whether that is an omission, because Food Standards Scotland actually gave evidence to this Committee.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point.

It is easy to joke about chlorine chicken or hormone beef, and at least one of the witnesses in the oral evidence sessions noted that we have heard more about those particular delicacies than we would ever wish to. Yet there is a profoundly serious point underlying the reference to them—a point that was hammered home in November last year when Wilbur Ross, the man appointed by Donald Trump to be US Secretary of Commerce, addressed the annual conference of the CBI.

Mr Ross put the UK on notice that we will have to relax our food safety laws if we wish to have a trade deal with the USA. He specifically called out the sanitary and phytosanitary regulations that we have in place to protect against the importation of potentially dangerous products, and he complained that they act as a barrier to US exports, seeing as the regulations that US producers have to abide by in their home markets are much lower than those that apply in Europe. Mr Ross explicitly warned the British people that we need to downgrade our food standards if we wish to have a trade deal with the USA.

The regulatory system that we have developed over decades in the UK is based on the precautionary principle, which states that where there is a risk that public health or safety might be compromised, regulatory bodies must err on the side of caution. The principle applies even if the level of risk cannot be fully quantified under the science that we have today. Any company or individual who wishes to introduce a product or process to the market must—quite rightly—prove it is safe to do so.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

On the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, proposed new sub-paragraph (iii) of the amendment refers to

“any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that therefore makes provision for the other Administrations’ bodies to be included in the scope of the amendment, although I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point that Food Standards Scotland was not specifically mentioned, and it might well have been?

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for their interventions, in which they both made valid points.

In the USA, the requirement is reversed. Those who wish to introduce products or processes to the market are free to do so unless the authorities can prove that they are unsafe. What they have tried to call the “scientific” approach to food safety, as opposed to the risk-based approach that we enjoy in this country and throughout Europe, has meant that the USA has ended up with lower standards of food hygiene and food safety. That is why the processes behind meat production on either side of the Atlantic are so radically different.

More than 90% of US beef is produced with the use of bovine growth hormones that have been linked to cancers in humans. We have food safety regulations in place across Europe that have banned any imports of hormone-grown beef from the USA and other countries for 30 years. US poultry producers are permitted to douse chicken and turkey carcasses with chlorine washes before selling them on to consumers. Again, that practice has been banned in Europe for more than 20 years, and the USA has challenged the ban at the WTO as being a barrier to its ability to penetrate the EU market.

The connection with animal welfare is paramount in this respect, in that the European regulations seek to introduce at least some consideration for the welfare of the animals that are farmed for human consumption. The USA has no comparable regulations on animal welfare, and the conditions in which its industrial farming takes place do not bear thinking about. Let me make the central point clear: the issue before us in this Bill is not whether we like the idea of eating hormone-grown beef, or whether we care about animal welfare in the raising of poultry for slaughter—those are debates we can have another time; the issue before us here is that we must be the ones to decide on food safety and animal welfare issues, and we must do so in an open forum as the elected representatives of the people of the United Kingdom.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we do not secure an amendment to protect food safety standards in the UK, we will be failing our constituents and potentially putting public health at risk?

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is important that we consider those wider issues in this Committee.

It is unacceptable that we might come to such a debate in the future only to discover that our right to choose what we eat and how it is produced has already been traded away in secret negotiations by a Secretary of State who ranks getting a trade deal far above protecting food safety for the British people. Amendment 8 would simply ensure that our trade agreements conform to food safety policies, not the other way around.

The significance of the challenge laid down by Wilbur Ross at the CBI last November was lost on no one. Two days after the speech, the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, responded to Wilbur Ross and posed the No. 1 question for the UK: do the British people wish to remain aligned with the European Union’s relatively high standards, or do we want our food safety standards to be downgraded so we can do a dirty deal with the USA?

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the Secretary of State’s statement that there

“are no health reasons why you couldn’t eat chickens that have been washed in chlorinated water”—

of course, that is the same Secretary of State who said that Brexit is the easiest thing in human history—it is crucial that we set out in statute that international trade agreements must maintain the food safety standards in our country?

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that must be set out in regulations and in statute.

I want to spell out clearly the connection between this amendment and one of the key issues in the post-Brexit settlement between the UK and the EU—namely, the border issue on the island of Ireland. Hon. Members will recall the dramatic scenes last month when our Prime Minister finally managed to move us on to negotiations with the EU about what our long-term relationship should be after Brexit. That was achieved by way of an agreement in respect of the island of Ireland, which committed the UK to the following:

“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”

When pressed further on what exactly that might mean, the Prime Minister was more explicit. She specified that there are six areas that are covered at present by north-south co-operation on the island of Ireland, and confirmed that one of them is agriculture.

The significance of the Prime Minister’s words goes far beyond the immediate issue of how we are to relate to the remaining 27 member states of the European Union in the future. Any suggestion that the UK might downgrade its food safety regulations to do a deal with the USA or any other trading partner would wreak havoc among farming communities both north and south of the border in Ireland, which would find themselves unable to continue trading freely. Allowing the Secretary of State to contemplate such a divergence in a trade deal with the USA or any other trading partner would jeopardise the peaceful co-existence that we have all endeavoured to hold together since the Good Friday agreement was signed 20 years ago. That is why amendment 8 is so important, and we hope the Government will vote to support it.

There are real threats. The USA agricultural lobby called for EU rules on pesticides to be downgraded in TTIP, given that we have far stricter regulations on the levels of chemical pesticide residue permitted in food. It called for our ban on the sale of genetically modified organisms to be eliminated, given that 70% of all processed food in US supermarkets is now made with genetically modified ingredients. It also called for an end to the mandatory labelling of products containing genetically modified ingredients, on the grounds that it represents a hidden barrier to trade. Consumer choice would go out of the window with public health, food safety and animal welfare rights.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is clearly an issue, as has been described, of consumer information and consumer rights, in terms of not just the quality of food being put on our plates but the conditions in which our animals are kept, the state of the abattoirs and the standards we maintain so highly in this country?

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I repeat that it is important to maintain the regulatory standards we have in this nation.

The US Government trade representative confirmed in writing at the very outset of the negotiations that the USA’s TTIP negotiators would be seeking to eliminate or downgrade those sanitary or phytosanitary measures that prevent US exports from entry into the market of the UK and other EU member states. That was one of the central reasons why TTIP became so toxic across country after country in Europe, and why the European Commission soon discovered that it had no legitimacy to continue the TTIP negotiations at all.

I should also note that there is a commercial aspect to this. The celebrity chef, Jamie Oliver, was so concerned about the potential impact of TTIP on his business—which is based on high-quality food imports at every stage of the supply chain—that he took it upon himself to call on the previous Secretary of State for cast-iron guarantees that food standards would not be included as part of the TTIP negotiations. The Secretary of State was unable to give him those guarantees, since the TTIP negotiations were, at that same moment, addressing sanitary and phytosanitary measures at the express demand of the US Government. Of course, those negotiations were going on behind closed doors.

That is what Wilbur Ross meant when he warned that the USA would demand the downgrading of UK food standards. That is why it has been so appalling to see the current Secretary of State laughing off the threat represented by such a downgrading of our standards.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I have been listening carefully, but to be absolutely clear, I think the hon. Lady referred to the previous Secretary of State. Obviously, the current Secretary of State is the first and only Secretary of State for International Trade. Could the hon. Lady perhaps clarify whom she is referring to as the previous Secretary of State?

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I am referring to the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable).

Amendment 8 also seeks to ensure that the food we eat comes from healthy animals that are naturally resistant to disease, not dosed up with antibiotics as an alternative to maintaining food hygiene throughout the production process, which is a standard model of industrial farming in the USA. We all know about the real threat of superbugs that develop their resistance to antibiotics. That is why the Veterinary Medicines Directorate has set targets for the reduction of antibiotic use in agriculture. This is where the interface between animal welfare and food safety becomes most compelling, and why British farmers should be proud to produce food that adheres to the highest standards—all the way from farm to fork.

Finally, this amendment would ensure that the bodies responsible for upholding and enforcing food standards in this country have the capacity to meet any extra requirements placed on them.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

I was just reading some of the evidence submitted by Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming, which says exactly what my hon. Friend is saying:

“We want affordable food, not cheap food, which may be poor quality or unsafe to eat. Cheap, poor quality, imported food will come at a cost—to the farmer or food producer, to animal welfare, to the environment or jobs in UK food and farming. There may be hidden costs to our NHS and economy from food poisoning and lost days at work.”

Does my hon. Friend agree that this amendment will help to protect our food standards?

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and wholeheartedly agree that this amendment would help to protect our food standards.

To clarify my previous comments and the intervention by the Minister, I was referring to the right hon. Member for Twickenham in his former role as Business Secretary.

Finally, this amendment would ensure that the bodies responsible for upholding and enforcing food standards in this country have the capacity to meet any extra requirements placed on them as a result of new UK trade agreements. We absolutely do not wish to see any downgrading of capacity in relation to food safety officers or others responsible for ensuring that we can have confidence in the food on our shelves.

Once again, I find it hard to see how the Government can find any reason to object to this amendment, and I hope that we can count on support from the Government Benches in voting it through.

(Afternoon)

Implementation of international trade agreements

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

May I start by welcoming you to the Chair, Mr Davies?

The Government have already made it clear that we will not use the necessary and indeed pertinent exercise of continuing the effects of our existing agreements as a back-door way to reduce standards, including food safety standards. As the Prime Minister said in Florence in September, we are

“committed not only to protecting high standards, but strengthening them…we will always be a country whose pitch to the world is high standards at home.”

I am happy to reaffirm the Prime Minister’s commitment to the Committee. We are committed to upholding and strengthening our high standards in public health and safety, product performance and protecting the environment.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

How does the Minister plan to prevent a race to the bottom on food safety standards in the UK and to protect British consumers if he is not prepared to accept the amendment?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

The Government have always been clear that we will maintain our very high standards on food and animal welfare, and for protection in that space. There will be no race to the bottom. Nothing in free trade agreements precludes a Government from regulating in the domestic environment. I hope that that is enough reassurance for the hon. Gentleman. On protecting the environment, high standards and high quality are what our domestic and global consumers demand, and that is what we should provide.

To be clear, nothing in the Bill would allow us to do a free trade agreement with the United States because, as we know, the United States does not have a free trade agreement with the European Union. While the hon. Member for Bradford South gave an interesting speech of some length about what may or may not happen in any future trade agreement with the United States, it is worth mentioning that the Bill does not cover free trade agreements with the United States. Any future free trade agreement with the United States must work for UK farmers, businesses and consumers, and uphold food safety and animal welfare standards. However, that is a matter for a future day; it is not relevant to the Bill before us.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Surely the Minister appreciates that the examples of the USA were given in order to clearly illustrate the principles. At no point was it suggested that those examples were a necessary follow on. However, they illustrated the principles, and the Minister must appreciate that and take it seriously, in terms of the amendment.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

We take incredibly seriously food safety standards, animal welfare and so on. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he has serious concerns in those spaces in respect of any of the 40-plus current EU trade agreements that we are seeking to move into UK law, perhaps he could let me know.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am very happy to adumbrate on that. The particular concerns relating to growth hormones in beef are, of course, of equal importance in the context of any future UK-Canada trade agreement, given that Canadian beef farmers are permitted to use growth hormones in a way that our farmers are not. The EU granted a higher quota to hormone-free Canadian beef exports in the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement negotiations. It was only popular pressure that prevented the European Commission from relaxing the ban on imports of hormone beef. We simply want to ensure that Parliament is the place where this country takes decisions on whether to relax or tighten our food standards. We do not want those decisions taken in secret trade negotiations and then imposed on us through the excessive powers in the Bill.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I am certain that CETA is consistent with our food safety and animal welfare standards. What is more, I think the majority of Labour MPs agree with me. Last February, Labour MPs split 86 in favour of CETA and 68 against, so whatever concerns the hon. Member for Brent North has, I gently suggest that he tries to persuade his own party before coming to see the Government.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Again, I am happy to take on the Minister on that. He is talking about something that happened before the previous election, and as personnel change, so perhaps does the wish of the members of the parliamentary Labour party. However, that is not really the point. He will also find that those people on the Labour Benches who wanted to support CETA on that occasion seem now to have changed their views about whether CETA—the Canadian model—is a good model for us to pursue in the trade negotiations. Most of them seem to have turned tail and run to the other side.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

The hon. Gentleman is trying to mix up the transitional and existing trade agreements with our future trading relationship with the European Union—which, I remind the Committee, is also not a subject of the Bill. I think he said that his vote against CETA was before the previous election, and if he is suggesting that he might have changed his mind on CETA, I am all ears. When we come to ratification of the treaty, I would personally welcome him as a sinner that repenteth, were he to come into the Lobby with Conservative Members to support the Canadian free trade agreement.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

rose—

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I will not give way. We are getting a little off the point.

We are absolutely clear that all existing commitments on standards and regulations will remain when those agreements are transitioned. That is in line with our clearly articulated principle that our intent is to transition solely the existing effect of the agreements. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Bradford South to withdraw it.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

We will not withdraw the amendment and wish to proceed to a vote.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert—

“(8) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) in relation to an agreement which meets the criteria in subsection (3) or (4) after the end of the period of five years beginning with exit day.”

This would make the sunset clause governing section 2(1) non-renewable.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I, too, am pleased to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Davies. How do you know when a Minister feels guilty? It is when he or she introduces a sunset clause. The Government know they are pulling a fast one in the Bill and clause 2 includes the Henry VIII power for Government to amend primary legislation by fiat. The provisions in the rest of clause 2 and its accompanying schedules reduce hon. Members of this House to little more than bystanders at a royal pageant.

The Government try to mitigate their power grab by making the offending powers in clause 2(1) subject to a five-year sunset clause. The Secretary of State is on record as saying:

“I hear people saying, ‘Oh, we won’t have any before we leave’. Well, believe me, we’ll have up to 40 ready for one second after midnight in March 2019. All these faint hearts saying we cannot do it—it’s absolute rubbish”.

Let us for a moment take the Secretary of State at his word and believe him when he tells us that we will have all these shiny new agreements ready and waiting by the end of March 2019. The five-year sunset clause that the Bill gives the Government is surely, therefore, the sort of defeatist nonsense that the faint-hearted would say they need. According to the Secretary of State, a half-hour sunset clause would be more than enough—perhaps half a day to pick up the stragglers or half a week to pick up the rank outsiders, the real laggards in the case. What is this nonsense?

There is a serious issue, because these agreements are supposed to provide British businesses with the certainty they desperately need so as to plan their operations and their investments in respect of trade with those countries with which we already have agreements by virtue of our membership of the EU.

Yes, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has confirmed that the UK will be unable to implement any of the new trade agreements until the end of a two-year transition period that we will negotiate with the EU, but that only buys the Government until the end of 2020 to come up with the 40 new trade agreements the Secretary of State promised would be ready by March 2019. The end of 2020 is the terminus proposed by the EU for our transition period, as was confirmed in the negotiating directives that it adopted yesterday.

So how can the Government say that they need longer than the five years that the Bill already grants them? The Bill will allow the Government until March 2024—more than three years after the extended deadline that has just been granted in the transition period after we leave the EU. Surely we cannot really be telling businesses that they will be hanging on by their fingernails to the cliff edge for more than six years from now.

I am not suggesting that we should rush the negotiation of any of the new trade agreements that will replace those that we have enjoyed with third countries by virtue of our membership of the EU—far from it. We need to get them right. What I am saying is that we should have a proper process of consultation and parliamentary scrutiny by which to debate and vote on what comes out of those negotiations.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, without limits on the renewability of the sunset clause and against the backdrop of a Government failure to commit to a second trade Bill, this Bill will certainly be seen by many as a potential Trojan horse for the Government to introduce future deals with minimum levels of scrutiny?

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be sceptical. The Minister has made much of the arguments that, first, there is a need for speed and, secondly, this is only a temporary Bill that puts in place temporary provisions to roll over the existing agreements. In fact, the powers—certainly the ones relating to the agreement on government procurement—are not temporary; they last longer.

Here, in the provisions of the sunset clause, we have not just one sunset period but the possibility of indefinite roll-overs of the sunset clause itself: five years, followed by five years, followed by five years. If the Minister is absolutely confident that the Bill is a temporary necessity, one must wonder why he wants the sunset clause to continue indefinitely into the future at the Government’s will, when it enables the Government to take on a Henry VIII power.

When I say that there should be a proper process of consultation and scrutiny by which to debate the negotiations, I am only replicating what Anastassia Beliakova of the British Chambers of Commerce demanded in her oral evidence during our final witness session last Tuesday, when she said that provision needs to be made not only for “appropriate scrutiny in Parliament” but for a proper process of “stakeholder engagement for business” and “civil society” in order to scrutinise any changes that might arise as a result of the negotiations.

If the Government are adamant that such a process is to be denied us, rejecting the advice of business and the demands of trade unions and other civil society bodies, it should be denied us for an absolute maximum of five years, with no renewal of the sunset clause, as provided for in clause 2(8) and (9). Every day longer that the Government have those powers is another day for which parliamentary democracy is put on hold. The first of our amendments says that five years is enough. We believe that it is five years too many, given the unmerited powers that the Bill grants to the Government and the rights that it strips away from Parliament, but certainly five years should be enough. If the Government still have not managed to roll over their agreements by March 2024, that power should disappear along with the expiry date.

I really wonder whether Government Members themselves believe that an indefinite use of a roll-over to give an unending Henry VIII power to the Government is a sensible power that this Committee should grant.

Let us say that the Government persist in getting rid of amendment 11. Amendment 12 would allow the Government one renewal only. That is, the Government would be allowed to ask Parliament for permission to renew the sunset clause for one extension, but no more. That would allow the Government the unmerited powers in the Bill right up to the end of March 2029. Can the Minister really demand, with any sense of integrity, that this Committee afford him and the Government greater power than that?

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Davies.

First, I reiterate that Opposition Members do not see the Bill as fit for purpose. We accept the need for clause 2: the Government will need to manage the handover of trade deals that are currently accessed through the EU. However, clause 2 is deficient and we are still to hear what the Government will to do to improve it and to improve the Bill. They have voted down every amendment that has been proposed so far, so it would be good to hear the Minister’s plan. Again, that is particularly important regarding the Government’s attitude to the devolved Administrations.

Just this morning, BBC Radio Scotland led its headline news with a report on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which is now moving to the House of Lords, and the fact that the House of Lords will have to make amendments to clause 11—amendments that were originally promised by the UK Government but were not brought forward. It did not paint the UK Government in a good light, especially when the UK Government could not even put up any spokesperson; it is plain why that was the case.

I say to the Minister that, given that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have both said that they will withhold a legislative consent motion unless there are amendments to this Bill, it would be prudent for him not to fall into that trap. Failing to make amendments once looks incompetent, but if proper amendments are not made to this Bill that satisfy the devolved Administrations, it will look a bit more sinister than mere incompetence.

I remind the Committee that it is not just politicians from the Scottish National party who are saying this; clearly, the Welsh Government are in agreement with the SNP. In the evidence sessions, which the Minister was at, we heard from different witnesses. Chris Southworth from the International Chamber of Commerce UK said:

“Overall...I would be concerned if I were in the devolved Administrations. There is specifically no opportunity for the devolved Administrations…to feed into decisions on trade. I would be very concerned about that, particularly in the devolved Administrations”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 35, Q80.]

Michael Clancy from the Law Society of Scotland said:

“There is clearly an issue about how the Sewel convention or legislative consent convention is interpreted in respect of that…any proposals in UK Parliament legislation that seek to alter the legislative competence of the Parliament or of Scottish Ministers require the consent of the Parliament.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 56, Q107.]

Professor Winters from the UK Trade Policy Observatory said:

“Parliament and the devolved Administrations need to have an important role in setting mandates, and there need to be consultation and information during the process.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 58, Q111.]

In written evidence, the Fairtrade Foundation, Trade Justice Movement, Global Justice Now and Traidcraft all clearly expressed the need for the devolved Administrations and Chambers to be given a role in the UK’s future trade policy.

Unfortunately, despite all that evidence the position of the hon. Member for Brent North appears to be that if the devolved nations do not have the powers at present, they should not look at getting them in the future. His phrase earlier was that they “shouldn’t be looking upwards”. To me, that sounds a wee bit like, “Don’t get ideas above your station”.

We have not tabled any amendments to schedule 1, which imposes limitations on the devolved Administrations. I would argue that that in itself shows that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government have taken a rational approach to the Bill in respect of the various amendments that have been tabled. We are not trying to create some form of awkward veto, as has been suggested elsewhere. Our simple intention is to make sure that the devolved Administrations are not ridden over roughshod. That means that there needs to be co-operation, consultation and consent.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely at one with him in wanting to ensure that the Bill does not make provision for Westminster Ministers to overreach themselves into devolved competences in any of the devolved Assemblies of the nations of our United Kingdom. We are equally concerned about that.

I have tried to present amendments in as open a way as possible, so that we can get the best wisdom from the Government and from the devolved Administrations, to ensure that nothing is done that would make it difficult, or indeed impossible, for a UK Government to honour any aspects of their international obligations under an international trade treaty. That is my only concern, and I am sure we can get to the right place with good will all round. It is a constitutional question, because these powers have not previously been possessed by the UK Government; they were held at EU level. It is therefore important that we give the matter the scrutiny that it deserves.

On amendment 35, which we are about to move on to, we are probably at one.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Thank you, Mr Davies, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I welcome his opening remarks, and I might have an opportunity to show how much when other amendments go to a vote. I also welcome his support for amendment 35. He talked about the wisdom of co-operation and of working with Government, and the wisdom of devolved Administrations. It is maybe a pity that the wisdom of the devolved Administrations is coming through me rather than directly, but we will just have to deal with that.

Amendment 35 is very modest. All we are asking is that, if the UK Government propose to extend the sunset clause, they must consult the Scottish and Welsh Governments. That does not seem to be too big an ask to me. It is also more pertinent given the five-year period proposed in the Bill. Given that the Bill, as I keep hearing, is to do only with the UK’s access to existing EU trade deals and bringing those deals into UK legislation, it makes me wonder why we would ever need a period beyond five years. We are dealing with legislation that should be coming forward quickly, given the date for leaving the EU, and given that the International Trade Secretary has said that these negotiations will be the easiest in human history. Why we would need Henry VIII powers beyond five years is a mystery. We are just asking for the courtesy that the Scottish and Welsh Governments are consulted if that is the case.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

We have had a wide-ranging and interesting mini debate, full of historical references and colourful metaphors. We have had Henry VIII, plenty of sunsets and royal pageants. The hon. Member for Warrington South even introduced a Trojan horse. It has been a helpful debate.

Let me try to explain why we have included the sunset clause for this power, because once I have explained, all will become clearer. It is so that Parliament can have the chance to review its merits once again five years after exit date. However, since this power may be required to ensure the operability of transition agreements beyond the five-year period, potentially indefinitely, it is important that the Government have the option to extend the use of the clause 2 power. That will, of course, be subject to the approval of both Houses.

For example, the power might be needed so that we can make technical changes to agreements after exit day to ensure that they remain operable on a longer-term basis. To give a specific example, in the case of a transitioned mutual recognition agreement, we may need to change secondary legislation to update the names of awarding bodies in third countries so that UK businesses can continue to use such bodies legally. Alternatively, where our trade agreements refer to international standards—we debated environmental and labour protection earlier, for example—we may need the power to update those references in domestic legislation to ensure that we remain compliant with our international agreements. Removing the possibility of extension would compromise the purpose of the power in ensuring the continuity and future operability of our current trading arrangements, risking disruption for UK businesses in the future.

Applying the affirmative procedure to the sunset clause means that the instrument that extends the power must be approved by resolutions of both Houses. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee would have the role of scrutinising the policy intention behind the regulations and, through its reports, drawing to the attention of the other place any that may be interesting, flawed or inadequately explained by the Government. In short, that means that Parliament would have significant oversight of the necessary legislation should the Government seek to extend the clause 2 power.

On amendment 35, in the name of the Scottish National party, we have been clear that we will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations as we transition our current arrangements.

Hannah Bardell (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman is determined, in his approach and plan, to consult the devolved nations. If he is, why not put that in the Bill to ensure that it happens?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

Because I like to keep legislation as brief as possible and, as I shall explain, I do not think it necessary for us to write that obligation into the Bill. Of course, we would continue to engage should we need to extend the clause beyond its sunset five years after exit day.

I was intrigued by the exchange between the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Brent North. I am still trying to find out why, on Thursday, the Labour Front-Bench team did not support the amendment promoted by the Welsh Government. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman properly explained, but perhaps when he responds he can throw a little more light on why he has seemingly jettisoned his colleagues from Wales, one of whom is on this very Committee.

On the requirement for a legislative consent motion, we have been clear that we are seeking such a motion for the Bill. I heard what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said about that, and I am sure that we will engage further. We are obviously talking to the devolved Administrations so that we can work towards delivering a Bill that will benefit the whole UK. Given that, we do not think that the formal commitments on consultation and engagement in amendment 35 would add substantively to the Bill. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

We have no intention of withdrawing amendment 11, so we need to press it to a vote.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

On amendment 12, to respond to what the Minister said, we heard oral evidence from Mr Howarth, who was in fact an adviser to Conservative MPs, that the Henry VIII powers were needed only for minor changes, potentially around the EU agreements—

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I was simply explaining that, in the light of the Minister’s remarks, we do wish to move the amendment, because it conforms with the suggestions of one of the Government’s own witnesses.

Restrictions on devolved authorities

Regulations under Part 1

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move amendment 13, in schedule 2, page 12, line 5, leave out from “section 1(1)” to the end of line 6 and insert

“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

This would require regulations implementing the Agreement on Government Procurement to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

This amendment is a simple but vital first attempt to restore democracy to the Trade Bill. It is simple because it replaces the negative resolution procedure the Government wish to use for future regulations under paragraph 2(1) of schedule 2 with an affirmative resolution procedure. It is vital because, without that, the Government have carte blanche to introduce regulations to implement the obligations arising from our independent membership of the GPA without the slightest hint of anything resembling parliamentary scrutiny. While the UK is a member of the World Trade Organisation in its own right and will continue to be so after Brexit, we are a member of the WTO’s plurilateral government procurement agreement only by virtue of our EU membership. We know that the Government will have to initiate a separate parliamentary procedure under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to prepare for the UK to rejoin the GPA in its own right. I am pleased the Minister made the commitment in our first line-by-line session last Thursday that there will be a vote in Parliament to decide on the terms under which we rejoin the GPA.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. That is not a correct assessment of what I said on Thursday. I said we would allow the power for Parliament to bring forward a vote under the Act. It is clearly stated in Hansard.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Good Lord, Mr Davies, it’s a jolly good job I have an extract from the Hansard here. I will press on and then quote from it.

CRAGA does not require there to be a debate or a vote on any treaty laid before Parliament under its terms, as has been repeatedly confirmed by the House of Commons Library via an expert witness from the Hansard Society and by everybody else who has read the Act or knows what it says. Yet, it certainly leaves the possibility open for Government to hold that vote if they are prepared to do so. Again, I am pleased the Minister reaffirmed last week not only that it is possible under CRAGA for the Government to bring forward a vote on the UK’s terms of entry into the GPA, but that

“the terms on which the UK enters the GPA in our own right will be subject to a separate vote in Parliament.”—[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2018; c. 131.]

Those are the words the Minister actually used. I am surprised he wants to cavil about them now. As he knows, our dissatisfaction with CRAGA is that it includes no requirement for a debate or a vote on a treaty laid before Parliament under its provisions. We are dependent on the good will of the Government as to whether Parliament is granted or denied the opportunity for a vote.

In this instance, I thought the Government had confirmed that there will be a vote, not that there might be, depending on the Labour party, so we look forward to the Government introducing that debate in Government time. However, that in no way deals with the broader issue of why Parliament should be dependent on the Government’s good will to have the opportunity to exercise its rights to due democratic process.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

It has been widely documented that the use of the negative resolution procedure the Bill proposes affords Members less opportunity for scrutiny in the House than is currently enjoyed by Members of the European Parliament. Indeed, Jude Kirton-Darling MEP told the Committee in no uncertain terms that the Bill is

“an enormous step back in democratic oversight of trade agreements.”—[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 43, Q86.]

Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that, for the Government to meet their commitment that the Bill will replicate existing arrangements as closely as possible, they must support the amendment to ensure the opportunity for scrutiny enjoyed by Members is closer to that currently enjoyed by MEPs?

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Indeed—my hon. Friend is right. Many Members on both sides of the House think it a travesty that we are afforded less opportunity to scrutinise things and less transparency than is afforded to our colleagues in the European Parliament.

On the agreement on government procurement, once we have had our opportunity to debate and vote on the terms under which we will rejoin it, the Government will then lodge our annexes with the WTO. The next stage is to issue the regulations that will implement the terms of our accession to the GPA, and then, in the years thereafter, to make changes to our domestic legislation that reflect the accession of new parties to the GPA or the withdrawal of any countries that decide to leave it.

It is important to note that that is not a temporary power covered by a sunset clause, as with the international trade agreements in clause 2. This is a permanent power for the Government to issue regulations implementing the UK’s obligations under the GPA into the indeterminate future—for as long as the WTO remains and the GPA is one of its constituent agreements. When we look at the fine detail of the Bill, we yet again discover that it is not a temporary little Bill about rolling over existing agreements; it actually has permanent, lasting effect. The roll-over powers could give Ministers the powers in perpetuity, under the Henry VIII provision.

We hear that the Bill is small, necessary, timely and time-limited, but in actual fact it is not. Our amendment 13 seeks to replace the negative resolution procedure, which the Government wish to apply to clause 1(1), with the affirmative procedure. I will remind the Committee of what that means so that we have a proper understanding of what we are talking about in this context, because it will also be essential to several later amendments that we will bring forward to other parts of the Bill.

The scrutiny procedure for delegated legislation in the House of Commons has come in for intense criticism in the context of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. That criticism is well merited. The Hansard Society’s expert report, “Taking Back Control for Brexit and Beyond”, lifted the veil on just how badly the system is failing to deliver the necessary scrutiny of secondary legislation at precisely the moment we need full confidence in it as we rebuild our system of checks and balances for the post-Brexit future. That report does not make pleasant reading.

The negative resolution procedure the Government propose for regulations under clause 1(1) is the least rigorous of all parliamentary procedures available. Secondary legislation subject to the negative resolution becomes law automatically once it has been laid before Parliament and has remained unchallenged for the requisite number of days—no need for a debate, no call for a vote. MPs may pray against any regulation by means of an early-day motion, but there is no obligation for the Government to schedule parliamentary time to debate that prayer.

The convention is that prayers made by Her Majesty’s official Opposition should receive parliamentary time for a debate, yet even then there is no guarantee that the convention will be respected. In the 2015-16 parliamentary Session, the Leader of the Opposition tabled a dozen prayer motions for debate—five were granted. Of the 585 negative instruments laid before Parliament in that session, only 3% were even debated. In the following parliamentary Session, fewer than one in 100 statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution procedure were debated at all.

The main point of the negative resolution procedure is to allow the Government to have their way without any need to bother parliamentary democracy, and it has been spectacularly successful. The last time a negative instrument was successfully annulled in the House of Commons was the Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) (Revocation) Order in 1979. I think that tells the story about what is intended by making these provisions subject to the negative resolution procedure.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

Almost every individual who has appeared before this Committee over the past week, from business leaders to academics, civil activists and lawyers, has told us that more needs to be done by way of parliamentary scrutiny in this Bill. If the Government will not support these amendments, what good reason do they have to ignore the recommendations of these individuals?

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Again, my hon. Friend puts it very succinctly and very well.

The delegated powers memorandum argues that the negative resolution procedure is appropriate to implement the UK’s obligations as an independent member of the GPA. It argues that it would be inappropriate to demand primary legislation to bring in the legislative changes necessary to reflect our new status as an independent GPA member, as this could introduce a significant delay in the proceedings.

Labour Members agree; we are not opposing the Government on that point. Primary legislation would be inappropriate to implement our obligations under the GPA once we had fully debated the terms on which we were joining the agreement, as the Minister promised us last Thursday that we will. Yet the issue here is not primary versus secondary legislation; it is negative versus affirmative in respect of the resolution procedure that governs the secondary legislation.

We simply do not believe that the negative procedure can be appropriate, precisely because of the lasting damage that could be done to contractors currently providing councils with goods and services if the regulations about Government procurement are made wrongly. Nor do we accept the Government’s contention that they must be allowed to use the negative resolution procedure because of time pressures inherent in the GPA itself. It is entirely spurious to suggest that the 30-day period between depositing the UK’s instrument of accession to the GPA and the accession coming into force is in any way coterminous with the drafting of a statutory instrument and its passage through Parliament.

The guidance on drafting statutory instruments issued by the Government Legal Service recommends allowing an absolute minimum of 22 weeks for the very simplest of negative instruments, with more complex ones requiring anything up to 61 weeks from their inception to the time they come into force—that is, well over year. Affirmative resolution instruments require only marginally longer, depending again on how complex they are—the Government Legal Service suggests allowing 26 to 67 weeks. In both cases, the process requires many months of planning beyond the 30-day period stipulated in the GPA. Government officials will have had to start work on the secondary legislation months in advance of depositing the UK’s accession instruments with the WTO, and they can just as easily factor in an affirmative resolution procedure as they can a negative one.

When it comes to the future accession of other WTO members to the GPA, which may well happen, the situation is even more acute. Here, Members of Parliament will have had no opportunity to consider any of the ramifications of opening up our public procurement contracts to new countries. So the only chance we will have of subjecting those new regulations to any scrutiny will come through the procedure that we enshrine in this Bill.

The WTO lists 10 countries that are in the process of acceding to the GPA: Albania, Australia, China, Georgia, Jordan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Oman, Russia, Tajikistan and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Five other WTO members have undertaken commitments in their WTO accession protocols to initiate accession to the GPA: Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia and the Seychelles. If and when they do accede, the UK will need to open up its Government procurement contracts to suppliers from every one of those countries. Once again, we agree with the Government that it would be overly burdensome to require new primary legislation every time another country accedes to the GPA. We are not asking for that. But we disagree that new Government regulations to implement our obligations should just be passed through on the nod. That is why we are arguing for the affirmative procedure in this case too.

Once again, the Government’s argument that we are constrained by the 30-day period between a country’s accession and our having to grant that country access to the UK’s public procurement market is entirely spurious. We will have been party to the negotiations surrounding their accession for months beforehand, giving Government officials ample time to prepare the requisite instrument for either negative or affirmative resolution.

This is a blunder. Even where a statutory instrument is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, the scrutiny that it undergoes is still remarkably light. MPs who have previously been assigned to Delegated Legislation Committees—and there will be many in this House—know they are not encouraged by the Whips to engage and speak. The affirmative resolution procedure has been called farcical and a waste of time. The Hansard Society notes, not surprisingly, that this system is “not fit for purpose”. It concludes with the stinging rebuke to all of us who are responsible for the proper functioning of Parliament that

“MPs can no longer be indifferent to the inadequacies in the system. They must now finally take seriously their democratic responsibility for delegated legislation.”

That is why the Labour party has tabled amendments to the Bill calling for an upgrading of the process for parliamentary scrutiny in respect of regulations stemming from our new trade obligations. As we have noted repeatedly, those obligations are serious. They are binding commitments made in international treaties that cannot easily be repealed. Domestic legislation can be repealed much more easily. If there was ever an example of secondary legislation crying out for proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, this is it. For the regulations necessary to implement obligations arising from the UK’s independent membership of the GPA, we consider the affirmative resolution procedure to be appropriate and proportionate. However imperfect the system is, at least the affirmative procedure provides Members of Parliament with the possibility of a debate and a vote. It is then up to us to make proper use of that opportunity.

Having heard the objections of such an independent body as the Hansard Society, I hope Government Members will agree with us—on this amendment at least—and support it.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

The UK currently participates in the government procurement agreement, known as the GPA, through our EU membership. The GPA offers UK businesses guaranteed access to approximately £1.3 trillion per annum of global public contract opportunities. We intend to remain in the GPA with the same rights and obligations that we currently enjoy as part of the European Union. Those were negotiated by the EU on behalf of member states for the 1994 GPA. The 2012 revised GPA was negotiated by the EU and scrutinised by the European scrutiny Committees in Parliament.

The power in clause 1 is a narrow one designed to allow us to implement the GPA as an independent member, as well as to reflect new parties joining and crucially—the hon. Member for Brent North rather overlooked this—to allow existing parties to withdraw from it. It will be a case of the UK using clause 1 to reflect having a new status within an existing, established agreement on procurement.

We need to be able to use the power quickly, so that UK businesses can continue to benefit from guaranteed access to an annual global procurement market worth £1.3 trillion. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the terms of the UK’s independent membership through the CRAG process. That process gives this House the power to consider, and where it felt this was appropriate, to block the UK’s ratification of the GPA.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I agree with the Minister’s interpretation of what he has just read out. Does he accept that he also said the following:

“the terms on which the UK enters the GPA in our own right will be subject to a separate vote in Parliament”?—[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2018; c. 131.]

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

Hence, the clarification, twice over, to be absolutely precise how that vote would work. I know the hon. Gentleman has attacked the negative resolution procedure, but I do not remember any such exhortation when he was a Minister under Tony Blair—I did not listen to every single thing he said in those years, but I do not recall that. I think he would have troubled the scorers if he had attacked such a procedure at the time under CRAG, which as we know is an Act of Parliament introduced by the last Labour Government.

The hon. Member for Brent North confirmed last week that he did indeed vote for CRAG. He said it was important in the days when the treaties in question had already been scrutinised by the EU and scrutiny was also passed down to

“this Parliament, where the European Scrutiny Committee…would examine forensically the contents passed from Europe”.—[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2018; c. 149.]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the revised GPA in 2012 went through the very process he described to the Committee and the very process that he voted for in 2010.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the GPA power is not time-limited. The answer is that new accessions to the GPA are covered by the clause to ensure that the UK does not breach its own GPA commitments. It is also essential to have the power to reflect withdrawals to ensure that withdrawing parties do not continue to enjoy guaranteed access to UK procurement markets. I will speak in more detail about withdrawals from the GPA.

The hon. Gentleman asserted that the GPA power continues into perpetuity, including the Henry VIII power. There is no Henry VIII power in clause 1, which allows for the implementation of the GPA. The powers in clause 1 are narrow in scope. They are designed to allow the UK to make legislative changes that reflect its new status as an independent member but, none the less, as a member of an existing and settled agreement.

The UK needs to use the power in clause 1 quickly to prevent UK businesses from losing guaranteed access to valuable procurement markets. The revised GPA has already been scrutinised by the EU and the European Scrutiny Committee, using the powerful microscope the hon. Gentleman described last week and for which he voted not so long ago.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

Last Thursday my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North spoke of the emails members of this Committee had received from members of the public urging them to amend this Bill to protect our democracy. The number of these emails in my inbox—and, I am sure, in all other Members’ inboxes—has reached just over 5,000. If the Government will not support these amendments to introduce at least some degree of parliamentary scrutiny, what good reason can they give the 5,000 individuals who have taken time to contact us for ignoring their concerns?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it allows me to put on the record something that concerned all members of this Committee when they logged on last Tuesday and discovered, seemingly, a large number of emails—hundreds and, in one case, 1,200—about this Bill. I am sure he, in the course of being a good constituency MP, would seek to check whether those emails were, indeed, from his constituents. I have to report that my colleague who received 1,200 such emails discovered, following further examination by his very diligent parliamentary staff, that precisely four of those 1,200 emails came from his constituents.

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that, in respecting parliamentary rules, I would have a close look at those emails and ask where they are coming from. Is the hon. Gentleman, indeed, answerable to these people? All of them will have a Member of Parliament in this House who will be the right person to direct those emails to. Getting 5,000 emails from across Britain in relation to one issue in this Parliament need not necessarily be representative of a wider move against this Bill, which is a technical Bill all about the continuity of our existing trading arrangements.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

I thank the Minister for giving me time. This is a national issue; it is not just a constituency-based issue. I understand that there is parliamentary procedure and that we do not have to reply to all those emails if they are not from our constituents. However, surely it tells us, as parliamentarians, that the problems and issues among the general public and in the business environment are quite immense.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We might be going too far down this road. I do not want to sound in any way condescending to a new Member, and my only advice to him, having been a Member in this House for 12 years, would be that the receipt of 5,000 emails from 650 constituencies is an average of nine emails per constituency. If he is suggesting that we make public policy, and that each of us makes our policy decisions, based on the opinions of nine constituents, I do not believe that would be a helpful road for us to go down.

Returning to the GPA, the UK’s independent membership will be considered under the CRAG process, meaning Parliament will be able to scrutinise the terms of the UK joining the GPA before the GPA can join, as I referred to in the debate on Thursday. The Government therefore believe that the negative resolution procedure provides an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for the power to implement the GPA in clause 1.

Furthermore, the Opposition amendment would also apply the affirmative resolution procedure when the UK uses clause 1 to make regulations to reflect new parties joining the GPA or—this is a very important point—existing parties withdrawing from it. In the case of new and withdrawing parties, it is important that the UK is able to respond quickly and flexibly. Once a new party deposits its instrument of accession, there is a period of only 30 days before that accession comes into force. The UK will then be under an immediate obligation to provide that new party with guaranteed access to UK procurement opportunities covered by the GPA. If the UK failed to offer the new party this guaranteed access, it would be in breach of its GPA commitment. On the other hand, a party to the GPA can decide to withdraw unilaterally, and where a party notifies the GPA committee that they intend to withdraw, they will cease to be a GPA member just 60 days later. Therefore, it is vital we are able to react quickly to such a notification.

If the power to amend UK legislation to reflect parties withdrawing from the GPA were subject to any affirmative procedure, the UK might not be able to legislate in time to remove the party by the 60-day time limit, which, of course, could result in the UK contracting authorities continuing to give guaranteed access to UK markets to a party that is leaving or had already left the GPA, and was therefore no longer entitled to access.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am listening carefully to the Minister. Does that 60-day timescale for countries seceding from the GPA mean that in those cases the Minister will not be able to fulfil the guidelines for statutory instruments that I referred to? If that is the case, it suggests that at an absolute minimum a statutory instrument, even on the negative procedure that he proposes, would only be for 22 weeks and at the outside for 60 weeks. Is he confirming to the Committee that in those circumstances, the guidelines laid down by the Government and Parliament in this area, even for the negative procedure, would not apply?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I want to make sure of the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. Perhaps I can pledge to write to him, copying in other members of the Committee and you, Mr Davies, on precisely how this fits in with our statutory instrument procedures.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Absolutely.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

To conclude, the withdrawing party would have no obligation to give UK businesses reciprocal access to its procurement markets, and it is of course vital that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise new accessions to the GPA.

I reassured the Committee last week and earlier today that we want to ensure a clear and significant role for Parliament in scrutinising future trade agreements. The provisions will enable those agreements to be completed effectively and efficiently, while respecting due process in Parliament. New accessions to the GPA will be included within that scrutiny process. That will ensure that Parliament can scrutinise new accessions during accession negotiations. The power that we are discussing will be used after that scrutiny, and approval of the accession, so I invite the hon. Member for Brent North to withdraw the amendment.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance that he will write to the Committee, but I will press the amendment to a vote, because it makes an important point.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move amendment 16, in schedule 2, page 12, line 5, leave out “or 2(1)”.

This is linked to amendments 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Let me state for the record that I am grateful to you, Mr Davies, and to the Clerks for agreeing to the reordering that we requested, so that amendments 14 and 15 could be selected with amendment 16, and debated ahead of amendments 17 and 19. I will try to make it clear why that is necessary.

I touched on the central problem of the Bill in my opening remarks in Committee when we first began our line-by-line examination of it. The Bill provides for the Government to issue regulations that will implement the UK’s new trade agreements with countries that currently have a trade agreement with the EU. The new UK trade agreement need bear no resemblance whatever to the EU agreement that it replaces; the Bill contains nothing requiring the UK agreement to match or mirror the EU’s existing agreement in any way, shape or form. It can be a wholly new departure with wholly new obligations. All the Bill requires is that the other signatory and the European Union were signatories to a trade agreement before Brexit took effect.

As we know from our witness sessions, there is every possibility that our trading partners will seek to use the negotiations on a new agreement with the UK to reopen any areas where they were unhappy with the outcome of their negotiations with the European Union. That is precisely what South Africa’s Trade Minister, Rob Davies, confirmed last year when he said that South Africa would be looking to expand the agricultural trade quotas and revisit the sanitary and phytosanitary measures that were negotiated as part of the EU’s economic partnership agreement with the Southern African Development Community.

Nor will the new UK agreement have undergone any process of scrutiny akin to the process that currently pertains, in which both the EU and our European Scrutiny Committee examine and debate trade agreements as they are being negotiated, as well as when they are being prepared for signing and ratification. Instead, the Government must simply lay the text of any new agreement before Parliament for 21 sitting days, as we have discussed extensively.

Using the power granted by the Bill, the Government can issue implementing regulations by means of the negative procedure, effectively removing Parliament from the process. That is why the Library briefing, which I cited earlier, is undeniably correct in stating bluntly that the Bill

“seeks to minimise Parliament’s role”.

Rather than repeating what I said, I will quote the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve); he asked the Secretary of State for International Trade:

“does the delegated powers memorandum not make it absolutely clear that the powers are broad enough to enable not just the implementation of these agreements, but their substantial amendment, including the creation of new obligations? Does that not then make it sensible—I urge him to do this—for the Government to look, as the Bill progresses, at ways to ensure that those can be properly scrutinised? That is because the methods we currently have of the European Scrutiny Committee and the European Parliament will no longer exist. That is a relevant issue for this House, and if the Government were to look at it in a sensible light, the Bill would be improved.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 218.]

I could not have put it better. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield is absolutely right. This is the moment for the Government to look at the issue in the sensible light that he proposed, and to make those necessary improvements to the Bill.

Schedule 2(2) is where the issue comes to a head, as it deals with parliamentary scrutiny of regulations that will implement the new UK trade agreements designed to replace those we have by virtue of being in the EU. Our amendment 15, the substantive amendment in this group, speaks directly to our desire to ensure that Parliament can subject the new free trade agreements to proper scrutiny.

I point out again that amendment 15 speaks to the UK’s new free trade agreements—the significant, comprehensive trade agreements that are notifiable under article XXIV of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and article V of the general agreement on trade in services. It does not suggest that we need to adopt such a process in respect of the other trade agreements that remain undefined in the Bill, namely mutual recognition agreements and the like. We are concerned with major free trade agreements that could have lasting social and economic impacts—precisely the type of treaty that has aroused public anger and resistance to the free trade agenda over the past few years.

Amendment 15 introduces a super-affirmative procedure to the process prior to ratification. This is the only procedure available to Parliament that ensures a proper level of scrutiny, guaranteeing both Houses of Parliament a vote on whether to approve the ratification of a new treaty. It provides for a Committee of either House to recommend rejection of the treaty; that goes some way towards replacing the lost powers of the European Scrutiny Committee. As per normal parliamentary custom, the precise function of such a Committee would be detailed in the Standing Orders.

We have deliberately constructed this amendment in such a way that the process applies prior to ratification. It would require the Government to lay before Parliament a draft order under which the trade agreement in question would be ratified. During the period covered by the Bill’s sunset clause, any UK free trade agreements that met the criteria of clause 2(3) would go through this process, rather than through CRAGA.

Once the new UK trade agreement has undergone this process of enhanced scrutiny, it will be possible to relax the level of scrutiny for the regulations needed to implement the trade agreement, as the treaty itself will have been through sufficient scrutiny prior to its ratification. This is why we needed to reorder the groups of amendments so as to take amendment 15 before amendment 19. If amendment 15 is voted through, we will not need amendment 19, as the scrutiny will already have taken place prior to ratification.

If, on the other hand, the Government vote down amendment 15, we will have failed to introduce a proper process of scrutiny prior to ratification. In that instance, trade agreements will have been ratified with a minimum of parliamentary involvement. We will therefore need to rely on scrutiny of the implementing regulations. We would then press to a vote amendment 19, which provides for the super-affirmative procedure.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

The super-affirmative procedure closely replicates the powers that MEPs enjoy in the European Union, so does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are to meet their commitment that the Bill will replicate existing arrangements as closely as possible, they must support the amendment?

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Again, my hon. Friend makes the point about the discrepancy between the scrutiny available to us here in this sovereign Parliament and the scrutiny available to members of the European Parliament. It would seem entirely at odds with the Government’s stated purpose for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill if we ended up having fewer scrutiny powers than Members of the European Parliament. That would seem to be a travesty.

I look forward with perhaps slightly more than the usual expectation to the Minister’s response to the amendment, given that this is the issue on which not only the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield spoke on Second Reading, but on which several other hon. Members from across the House registered their profound concern. This is the moment when we discover whether the Government are prepared to heed the calls of right hon. and hon. Members alike and look at the Bill in a much more sensible way.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

Let me reassure hon. Members that I listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Brent North said. First, let me repeat that the majority of free trade agreements within the scope of the Bill have already been ratified, and Parliament had the opportunity to scrutinise them during ratification. Parliament’s European Scrutiny Committee also scrutinised these agreements when they were negotiated, included, signed and provisionally applied. They had, of course, already gone through the European Parliament process as well, to which the hon. Member for Warrington South helpfully drew our attention.

The Government have made clear their intention to ratify by exit date all the EU free trade agreements that currently provisionally apply, including the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement, and the economic partnership agreement with the Southern African Development Community, or SADC.

The hon. Member for Brent North drew attention to the comments of a South African Minister. To be honest, I cannot remember precisely whom he referred to, but for clarity I refer him to the memorandum of understanding signed by the Secretary of State for International Trade in South Africa in either August or September. Both parties specifically agreed to transition the agreement and maintain continuity, without substantive change. Whatever the hon. Gentleman’s South African said, the memorandum of understanding is absolutely clear in that regard. As I said to the International Trade Committee last week, 70-plus countries have agreed in principle to maintain continuity in trading arrangements. For example, we signed a similar memorandum with the CARIFORUM group to do precisely that.

Parliament’s scrutiny of these agreements, which have already been scrutinised, will be guaranteed by the process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. As we have made clear, this is a technical exercise to secure continuity in our existing trading arrangements, not an opportunity to renegotiate the terms of existing agreements. That means that further scrutiny of those agreements, the benefits of which are already felt by businesses and consumers, is unnecessary. As we have made clear, we want Parliament to play a vital role in the scrutiny of future trade agreements that are not covered by the Bill, but that is for a separate occasion. We made clear in the trade White Paper and in this Committee on Thursday that our future trade policy must be transparent and inclusive.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

We heard from many witnesses last week that so-called roll-over agreements not only will be legally distinct from our existing EU agreements, but are likely to be substantially different in their terms. Does the Minister agree that those new agreements need to be subjected to adequate scrutiny and parliamentary oversight, and that a super-affirmative procedure is appropriate?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I very much appreciate the way, as a new Member, he is getting stuck into the Bill, but I remind him that, in terms of securing the continuity of agreements, more than 70 countries have now agreed that there will not be substantive change. I mentioned South Africa, with which we have a memorandum of understanding saying that. There is no need to re-scrutinise agreements that are substantively the same and have already been through the proper scrutiny processes of both Houses. That is why we made clear in the trade White Paper and in this Committee on Thursday that our future trade policy must be transparent and inclusive, and that Parliament will be engaged throughout the process. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Brent North to withdraw amendment 16.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

We intend to press amendment 16 to a vote.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 12, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown under section 2(1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

This would require regulations implementing international trade agreements to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Amendment 19 would require any regulations implementing new UK trade agreements to be subject to a super-affirmative procedure. If the Government are not willing to allow us the super-affirmative procedure prior to ratification, as they have just shown they are not, we will be compelled to argue for it afterwards. Clearly, we would prefer to keep the stable door shut rather than having to retrieve the horse after it has bolted, but if we could at least provide for some parliamentary process subjecting implementing regulations to scrutiny, that would be better than nothing. As it is presently constituted, nothing is precisely what the Bill offers.

The procedure mirrors that which we seek to introduce with amendment 15: namely, in this case, a proper process granting Parliament the power to subject implementing regulations to scrutiny. The provisions are drawn from existing primary legislation that provides for enhanced scrutiny in other contexts. Once again, the key elements of them are that a Committee of either House can object to the regulations, and that both Houses must give their approval before the Secretary of State can proceed with making the regulations.

Amendment 17 is, in a sense, our fall-back position should amendment 19 not succeed. I cannot believe that the Government will risk the ire of right hon. and hon. Members from the Conservative party as well as the Opposition parties by turning down every single attempt to introduce scrutiny provisions to the Bill. We would have preferred something altogether more rigorous than just intervening at the late stage of implementing regulations, but if that is all that the Minister is prepared to leave us with, we will have to satisfy ourselves with that meagre pottage. In the relevant Delegated Legislation Committee we would then be able to have a debate and vote when the implementing regulations were submitted.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I think we are potentially about to have quite a similar debate to the one that we just had, but let me be as succinct as I can. I remind Members that this power will be used only to introduce regulations that reflect current obligations in our EU trade agreements. That means that we are not seeking to change the effects of our existing trade agreements through the power. The agreements have already been examined by Parliament as part of its regular scrutiny of EU business. Ratified free trade agreements have already been through the normal parliamentary scrutiny process for treaty ratification.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

The Minister said that the Government are not proposing to change the provisions in any of the treaties. I think he said earlier in our debate that 71 countries had already agreed. Could he just clarify for the Committee once and for all, because he has failed to do so thus far, whether that includes Norway, Switzerland and Turkey?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but we have already covered that ground as well. The agreements with Norway, Turkey and Switzerland will inevitably be dependent on our future trading relationship with the European Union, because of the unique way that each of those countries operates in conjunction with the European Union.

The hon. Gentleman says that we are not proposing changes. It is just as important to recognise that more than 70 of our partners do not want substantive changes to the agreements either. Perhaps we need to put aside for a moment some of the ways in which the Bill operates, and think about what is in the interests of our trading partners. It is as much in their interests as ours to have continuity of the existing agreements. It is therefore not a surprise to me that more than 70 countries have said that they are not seeking substantive changes to the agreements.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I appreciate the point that the Minister seeks to make. However, as he says, there are 70 of them and one of us. In any negotiation, the disadvantage is always with the minority. We are going to be in a very difficult position. One could well imagine—this point came up at the International Trade Committee last week—that the opportunity exists for those nations to renegotiate or, recognising the time pressure that we will be under, to make changes. Surely it should be for Parliament to consider any such change to a trade agreement, not for the Minister or a select few.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

The hon. Gentleman puts his question in a reasonable way. I know he is a member of the International Trade Committee and was there for the evidence session last Wednesday. However, it is not the case that we and the 70-plus countries are in some kind of plurilateral agreement. The number he talks about is the number of agreements, not the number of negotiating partners to that same agreement. Essentially, they would run the same risk that we would run if anyone were to want to renegotiate the agreement. The risk is that we would run out of time to have the transitioned agreement in place come the day that we leave the European Union. We have as much risk and as much downside as the counterpart does. That is the important thing to understand. The Government therefore consider the negative procedure to offer the appropriate level of further scrutiny over the operation of the power.

Turning to amendment 19, as we have made clear, the purpose of the Bill is to help maintain the effects of our existing trading arrangements as we leave the EU. It is vital that we secure that continuity without delay, to avoid disruption for businesses and consumers. That is why we are seeking a power that ensures that our transitioned trade agreements can be implemented in the nimblest and most efficient way possible, through the negative resolution procedure. A switch to the super-affirmative procedure would risk undermining that objective. Statutory instruments subject to the super-affirmative procedure may take even longer than using primary legislation to implement a transitioned agreement, which would therefore increase the risk of a cliff edge in our trading relationships.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Just to clarify—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—the agreements will in many cases be trilateral because of our existing relationship with the EU and the relationship with the other country among the 70-plus the Minister mentioned. There is therefore an opportunity for that other country to make the negotiation or arrangement difficult. That is why we are seeking to put in place scrutiny in Parliament.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I made earlier: none of the 70-plus countries that we have spoken to has said that it wants to do that. It would not be in their interests for them to do so, for reasons of maintaining continuity in our trade relations. That is very much in our and their interests.

Let me finally remind the Committee that Parliament still has oversight of statutory instruments introduced under the negative resolution procedure, using well-established processes as outlined in CRAG. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Brent North to withdraw the amendment.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

We will press amendment 17 to a vote.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move amendment 20, in schedule 2, page 12, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown under section 2(1) relating to an international trade agreement other than a free trade agreement which does not meet the criteria under section 2(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

This would require regulations implementing an international trade agreement which is not a free trade agreement and which does not correspond to a prior or existing EU agreement to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

This is the final amendment in our series trying to introduce just a modicum of parliamentary scrutiny into the Bill. It refers to the last category of trade agreements that have not yet been covered in the previous amendments.

If hon. Members cast their minds back to amendment 3, which we presented in the first line-by-line sitting last Thursday, that amendment sought to expand the remit of the Bill to include not just agreements that correspond to existing EU agreements but those with countries where there is no prior EU agreement in place. The major set of amendments that I presented at that sitting sought to introduce a full process of preparation, debate and scrutiny up to the point of signature of free trade agreements within the category of comprehensive agreements that need to be notified under GATT article XXIV or GATS article V. Amendment 20 picks up on trade agreements that are not free trade agreements for the purposes of GATT article XXIV or GATS article V, and that do not correspond to an existing EU agreement. Without the amendment, they would not be covered anywhere in the expanded Bill as we envisage it.

We do not believe that it would be an appropriate use of parliamentary time to subject every new mutual recognition agreement to the full rigour of impact assessment and mandate-setting parliamentary scrutiny. We believe it would be enough to have the minimum scrutiny of the affirmative resolution procedure, which allows for a debate and vote where it is thought necessary, but which also allows for the swift passage of regulations through Parliament where they are clearly non-controversial.

I will point out here that some mutual recognition agreements and other agreements are potentially very controversial. In the case of mutual recognition agreements with countries whose regulatory systems are radically different from our own, such as the United States, there could be huge pitfalls in allowing for mutual recognition where it could lead to products entering the UK market that have not been subjected to the rigorous tests that we demand in our jurisdiction. If anything, we are erring on the side of being too pragmatic in suggesting that those agreements be subjected to the affirmative resolution procedure only, seeing as the affirmative procedure can be open to the abuse I described earlier in my reference to the Hansard Society’s report. At least we can take comfort in the fact that a Delegated Legislation Committee would have the power to hold the most controversial regulations up to scrutiny and subject them to a vote in Parliament, which would be a quantum leap from what the Bill currently offers.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

Clause 2 would limit the scope of agreements on which the power can be used to those where the other party had a free trade agreement signed with the EU before exiting. Amendment 20 would establish a procedure whereby the power is used in relation to agreements falling outside those parameters. As we do not wish to extend the scope of clause 2 to allow the power to be used in relation to more agreements, it follows that we do not need to apply a procedure to the implementation of such agreements. The amendment, therefore, is unnecessary in every way.

However, if the spirit of the amendment is to explore what constraints we have drafted into the clause 2 power, I am happy to provide reassurance to the Committee. As I have said before, the power can be used only in relation to free trade agreements with countries that have signed EU free trade agreements before exit day. A free trade agreement covers substantially all trade notifiable to the World Trade Organisation. To be clear, the power cannot be used to amend primary legislation except when that primary legislation is retained EU law. It cannot be used to implement a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union itself. Nor can it be used to extend or create new criminal offences or create new fees or charges.

The power has a five-year sunset clause from exit day. If the Government wish to extend this period, they may do so only with the permission of both Houses. We and our trading partners are clear that this will be a technical exercise to ensure continuity in trading relationships. It is not an opportunity to change or renegotiate the terms of these EU agreements. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for Brent North to withdraw the amendment.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I do not wish to shock the Committee, but we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Trade Remedies Authority

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I will not detain the Committee for long, but it is important when we establish a new authority to step back. Some of these issues will be raised in debates on amendments, so I will not get too far into the detail.

I strongly support the creation of the Trade Remedies Authority. As our trade policy is slowly developed in the months and years to come, we will need it to be underpinned by a robust remedies regime. Certain characteristics of the authority are very important, and it would aid the interpretation of the Bill in due course if the Government’s aims and intentions were set out on the record.

For an authority to be effective, it needs certain characteristics. First, it needs to be objective and evidence-based. I think that most Members would agree with that in general, but it becomes far more difficult when there is an acute case that is difficult in our constituencies or is of a totemic nature nationally. We need to be clear when we establish the authority that it should be objective and evidence-based in its deliberations and when advising Ministers.

Secondly, the organisation needs to have a broad base. It needs to be open and accessible. All stakeholders must feel that they are able to engage with the authority, and that they are listened to by its whole structure. We have heard examples of authorities in other countries. I simply say that I want to ensure that the consultation process includes not just the business world, but the workers whose jobs may well be threatened and consumers, whom we heard mentioned in evidence. I hope that the Minister can confirm that it will. Many of these issues require a balance between those two sides, and we need to ensure that we have such a balance. It is also important that the authority listens and is seen to listen. The characteristics I have touched on—objectivity, broadness and inclusivity—are important if the authority is to be recognised both here in the United Kingdom and by our trading partners abroad.

The third characteristic is efficiency—or timeliness, as some lawyers describe it. I always find it entertaining when lawyers describe timeliness. Efficiency is of course in tension with the idea of a broad consultation, but we are all aware that there will be cases where prompt action is required, so it is necessary to have good processes in place. Although those will clearly come later, it is important that we put that on the record at this stage, and we would benefit from hearing from the Minister about that.

The most important characteristic, however, is independence. We have heard on Second Reading and in Committee that we all want the authority to be independent and that, naturally, it should be at arm’s length from the Government—the current Administration and future Administrations—for many years to come. That is right, but if it is to be effective, the authority also needs to be able to withstand the media and political pressures that will arise when individual cases come forward. We must ensure that the structure that the Bill builds is robust enough to withstand those pressures. That is why the authority’s non-executive members must be appointed on the basis not of sectional interest but of merit.

We will debate in due course whether the non-executive members should include people from Wales or Scotland, or trade unionists. There are merits to ensuring that the authority listens to all such interests, but I worry that if non-executive members are appointed because they represent one sectional interest or another, the authority’s ability to give independent, objective advice to the Government will be limited. We will come on to the details of that when we debate amendments, but that is an important broad principle.

I strongly believe that if we are to have a remedies authority and an effective set of remedies rules, we need to ensure that those principles are clearly set out not just in legislation but by Ministers and those who are appointed to the authority, so that people both here and abroad can see that that is the intention. I think that would also answer some of the concerns about whether the authority will listen to workers through the trade union movement, by ensuring that consultation is broad and that the authority is clearly outward facing.

It comes back down to this last point: if we want others to follow the rules in trade, so that we have a free and fair system, we have to be seen to abide by those rules ourselves. There will come a moment when this authority reports to a Minister, when there will be a totemic business that is right on the cusp because of a particular practice, or there will be job losses that sharply affect a community that has already lost many jobs. At that moment, the test of the authority is whether it is objective. Is it giving its advice to Ministers on the basis of evidence? Is it genuinely independent and therefore able to be trusted by people here and abroad? Those are important principles and I welcome the Minister’s response.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

Right.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

He didn’t tell you?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

No.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

I beg to move amendment 21, in schedule 4, page 14, line 24, leave out line 34 and insert—

“(a) a member to chair it, appointed by the Secretary of State with the consent of the International Trade Committee of the House of Commons,”.

This would establish the requirement for Parliament, through the relevant committee, to give its consent to the Secretary of State’s recommendation for appointment to the Chair of the Trade Remedies Authority.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

It is interesting that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford chose to speak in the clause 5 stand part debate, because many of the points he made relate to amendments 21, 22 and 23, which I now speak to on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends. During his interesting and thoughtful speech, he made very strong arguments in favour of each of our amendments. He spoke of the need to be evidence-based and objective, which would be much easier achieved by the balanced membership proposed by our amendments. Equally, he spoke of the need for a broad-based membership—I agree. He also made the argument for balancing the different interests that are involved in delivering trade remedies and an effective Trade Remedies Authority. I will be interested to see how he votes, given that he made the case for supporting each of our three amendments.

As ever, the Minister reminds us of the vote on Second Reading. He neglected to say that in our reasoned amendment we called for the need for effective legislation to implement the establishment of a Trade Remedies Authority to deliver the new UK trade remedies framework. We voted for that, and he voted against it. If he wants to tell me why he voted against an amendment that called for the establishment of a Trade Remedies Authority to deliver the new UK trade remedies framework, he can do so now.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to do so. We all know that the usual purpose of a reasoned amendment is that it allows an Opposition party to put forward a point of view about a Bill while nevertheless still allowing it not to oppose the Bill itself. That is the standard way in which reasoned amendments operate. We were simply amazed that once his reasoned amendment fell he nevertheless opposed the Bill. That shows that he opposes the continuity of these trade agreements, the creation of a Trade Remedies Authority, and data-sharing powers that will help our exporters. I am afraid that that is on the record from his vote on Second Reading.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that we voted to support the creation of a Trade Remedies Authority and that he voted against it. I think that was very clear in that lengthy intervention.

As the explanatory statements make clear, amendments 21, 22 and 23 would have the effect of giving Parliament the power of consent over the appointment of a chair to the Trade Remedies Authority set up by the Bill. They would establish a procedure for the appointment of non-executive members to the authority, and ensure that the TRA includes representatives of key stakeholder bodies among its non-executive membership—all things that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford requested.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I actually said that the non-executive members need not to be beholden to a sectional interest and they need to be able to make a corporate decision. My worry is that amendment 23 does precisely the former. There are some 5.3 million people in the west midlands and some 5.6 million in Scotland. Presumably, according to the logic with which the hon. Gentleman has drafted the amendment, we should also have somebody from the west midlands. I am sure that people from Yorkshire would then like to have someone from Yorkshire. My concern is that ultimately we will end up with one person representing not the broad picture, but a sectional interest. I am very happy to have people who have links and connections to those areas, but to appoint them on the basis of where they come from or to represent one sectional interest would be wrong. Merit should win.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

Perhaps the appointment of the non-executives can cover all those areas.

Trade remedies and the Trade Remedies Authority are a key element of our trade policy. Gareth Stace of UK Steel told us in one evidence session that

“If we get this very wrong, we become the dumping ground—not just in Europe, but for the rest of the world.”–––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 66, Q127.]

It is therefore essential that we get it right, and the Bill is our opportunity to do that. The Government have spent the past few days in Committee trying to convince us that the Bill is a technical little Bill that is not trying to do much other than put in place necessary frameworks. On the Trade Remedies Authority in particular, they have gone to great pains to stress that they are simply setting up the necessary structures to carry out our trade defence once we have left the European Union. This much is true: the Trade Bill does set up the Trade Remedies Authority, which will be a key component of our trade policy once we leave the European Union, when we have to carry out our own trade remedies.

Hannah Bardell (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

rose—

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

rose—

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

I am spoiled for choice. I will give way to the hon. Lady.

Hannah Bardell (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—that was a clash of interventions and I am glad to have won the battle. I absolutely agree with him. Does he agree with me that, although none of us, unfortunately, has tabled the amendment that has just occurred to me, the authority should reflect the gender balance of society? Perhaps there should be a gender balance mechanism, as it will be a public body.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

It is really important that we take on the challenge set by the hon. Lady and apply it to all public bodies. How we achieve such a gender balance is perhaps a question for wider discussion, but her point is well made. The Minister might achieve the balance she suggests when he creates the authority.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

The role of Parliament in overseeing the creation of the Trade Remedies Authority was described to the Committee as “critical” by Chris Southworth of the International Chamber of Commerce. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that if the Government do not support the amendment, they are clearly choosing to ignore the voice of the ICC? Does he also share my concerns about the repercussions that that might have for the future of UK trade?

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent intervention, as he has done throughout Committee. That body has to carry the confidence of all sides of industry and all parts of society and of the United Kingdom. It is crucial that it does so, which is why we are attempting to push the amendments through. I imagine, from what the Minister has said, that he is unlikely to support us—why change the habit? Perhaps, however, he will explain how those points will be addressed and how the Government will respond to the witnesses mentioned by my hon. Friend, as well as some of the other witnesses.

The Minister is not letting on that trade remedies are not simply a technical detail of trade policy. They have the potential to be highly political. In essence, trade remedies defend domestic producers from unfair competition from dumped goods from other countries. The remedies are an essential policy tool to correct multilateral distortions, as Mr Stevenson, the specialist adviser to the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance told us last week. Deciding when and how to use such trade defence instruments, however, is a political decision, and a highly political one at that, as is that on the membership of the TRA. It is crucial to get the membership right, to ensure that the TRA makes correct, balanced and evidence-based recommendations—as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford put it—to Government.

As the system is to operate under this Bill and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, the Secretary of State has the capacity to use an economic interest test to allow the Government not to take action even when problematic trade behaviour by another country has been identified. In other words, the Government will have the capacity to decide that even when harm is being done to our domestic industries, other interests such as the consumer interest may outweigh those of the producers affected. To quote the words of George Peretz, QC, who we heard from last week:

“That seems to me to be a political position: it is balancing the interests of jobs in a particular area of the country against the interests of consumers across the country”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 55, Q105.]

The same point was made on Second Reading by a number of hon. Members, including about the Scotch whisky and steel sectors.

The Minister cannot pretend that the Bill and the structures created by it are apolitical and purely technocratic. Trade remedies can make the difference between the survival of an industry and its decimation. They can protect thousands of jobs or let them be exported overseas. They can defend our foundation industries or let them fall by the wayside. I am sure the constituents of the hon. Member for Corby can attest to that.

Tom Pursglove (Conservative, Corby)

That’s why I voted to set it up.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

The hon. Gentleman comments from a sedentary positon; perhaps he is allowed to do that.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I just want to respond to the comments made by the hon. Member for Corby from a sedentary position. It is ironic that he is saying yet again that we should have voted for the Bill on Second Reading and then tabled amendments, even though the Government have voted against every single amendment.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

The hon. Gentleman is of course right. I remind the hon. Member for Corby and his colleagues that he and they all voted against our reasoned amendment, which called for the setting up of the Trade Remedies Authority.

Trade remedies are absolutely essential in order to protect British industries, including the steel sector, ceramics, tyres, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. As Gareth Stace of UK Steel told us,

“Trade remedies...are the safety valve that enables free trade to take place.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 66, Q127.]

One need only look at the steel sector to understand why trade remedies are necessary and also how incredibly political they can be.

As the steel crisis highlighted, when no trade remedies are put in place to defend our steel industry against dumping from countries such as China, thousands of jobs are lost and entire communities are negatively affected. We were reminded of that at BEIS questions earlier today, when my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) raised the ongoing devastating impact on the community and workers who lost their jobs at SSI. She spoke of the continuing struggle to replace their jobs and to create prosperous alternatives for her constituents. So far, that has not been resolved.

During the steel crisis the Conservative Government under David Cameron acted as the ringleader of a group of countries in Europe trying to block efforts at the European Council to put in place more rigorous anti-dumping measures against China by lifting the lesser duty rule. British steel was going through an existential crisis and the Conservative Government did not use all the policy tools available to them to restore a level playing field. The EU ended up imposing tariffs on unfairly traded steel, but they were much lower than those imposed by other countries such as Australia and the USA.

Now that we are leaving the European Union the Government have rightly set out to create an independent trade remedy regime, yet they seem to not have left their bad habits behind. They still envisage having a lesser duty rule in place. On top of that, they have introduced an economic interest test in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill. Once again British producers do not make it to the top of the list of concerns for the Secretary of State and Ministers. They seem to want to champion only consumer interests. That is why we believe it is important that Parliament has a say in the appointments to the Trade Remedies Authority and why we believe non-executive members of the TRA should include representatives of producers and trade unions from each of the devolved Administrations. There needs to be an in-built system of checks and balances so that all interests are taken into consideration and all voices are heard. As Mr Southworth from the International Chambers of Commerce said on Tuesday last week, issues such as steel dumping have

“huge implications for a lot of people, particularly in geographies that tend to be vulnerable...It is important that everyone has a chance to have their say about what that decision should be.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 26, Q57.]

Even in the short time that the Department for International Trade has been in existence, its track record on being inclusive and mindful of the input of stakeholders has not been ideal. The consultation on the Trade Remedies Authority ended on the evening of 6 November. By early morning on the 7th, the Trade Bill had been published and delivered to Parliament. James Ashton-Bell of the CBI diplomatically said that

“the optics were not ideal.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 34, Q79.]

What a disgrace. Why did the Government bother to have a consultation when they clearly had no intention of reading the responses, let alone taking on board the suggestions? That is a clear breach of the consultation principles issued to all Departments in 2016.

Given the Government’s flippant disregard for stakeholder engagement, we think it is especially important that Parliament, the devolved Administrations, industry and the trade unions should have a voice in the process, and that that should be set in statute. In the Bill, the Secretary of State has given himself powers to appoint the chair of the TRA. Amendment 21 would establish the requirement that Parliament, through the International Trade Committee, should give its consent to the appointment. That is so that the chair would not be appointed on the basis of party political considerations or dogma, rather than ability and suitability for the role.

The Secretary of State has flaunted his free trade credentials time and again. His advisers range from the former Institute for Free Trade—it is now called just IFT because it cannot legally call itself an institute—to the Legatum Institute. They are of a certain dogmatic persuasion that trade should be unfettered at all costs. If the Secretary of State were to appoint one of his friends from the IFT or Legatum to chair the TRA, producers, trade unions, and stakeholders in the nations and regions of the UK would have cause for concern.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

I have a quick question: does the hon. Gentleman agree with his party leader that free trade itself is a dogma?

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

I think we should press on. The Minister has enough to worry about.

As Mr Stevenson of the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance told us last week:

“Some see trade remedies as purely protectionist and would abolish them completely”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 65, Q124.]

It is key, therefore, that Parliament, through its relevant Committee, should get to scrutinise who the Secretary of State appoints as the head of the relevant body, and that it should make sure it is someone with the competence, experience and disposition to stand up for the best interests of British industries and the British people.

Similarly, amendment 22 would ensure that the Secretary of State cannot appoint non-executive members to the TRA at his whim and fancy. He should not be able to stack the TRA with members of a certain political and ideological persuasion that would mean they would be less likely to act on complaints brought forward and less likely to recommend measures. We heard from Mr Stevenson of the MTRA last week that if all its members

“thought trade remedies were protectionist, we would never get any trade remedies through”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 65, Q124.]

Parliamentary scrutiny of the membership of the TRA is even more important in the light of the evidence given to this committee by Mr Tom Reynolds of the British Ceramic Confederation. He highlighted to us at column 67 that, within the context of our membership of the European Union, the UK Government took on the role of the “liberal counterweight” opposing strong trade defence measures. However, now that we will not have the other 27 member states, of which a majority is for trade remedies, we cannot afford to take the same approach.

Unfortunately, according to Mr Reynolds, UK civil servants and experts are “steeped in that heritage” of the UK being a neo-liberal counterweight. We cannot afford to let that institutional memory dictate how our independent trade defence policy is conducted. We need to ensure that the non-executive board of the TRA is a watchdog that ensures balance in the system. The only way to do that is to allow this House, through the appropriate Committee, to have a say on the appointment of the board members.

Finally and most importantly, amendment 23 would ensure that the TRA includes among its non-executive members representatives of stakeholder bodies potentially affected by the recommendations of the TRA. Those stakeholders are the producers, the trade unions representing the workers and a representative of each of the devolved Administrations. We have put that into our amendment because we believe that the key stakeholders affected by unfair trading practices should be represented around the table where decisions are being made that affect the survival of their industries and jobs, and the wellbeing of their communities. The TRA will only be enriched by experts from industry, trade unions and the devolved Administrations, who are the ones facing the realities of dumping on a day-to-day basis and close to home.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Does my hon. Friend have a view on the recent situation with Bombardier and the involvement of the US trade body that found in its favour? Are there any learnings from that? I am specifically interested in the role of the unions on that body, as well as industry representatives.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

My hon. Friend is right to raise that. The Bombardier experience shows that countries are prepared to apply very significant trade remedies. We have to be realistic. We need to be in a position to have our own trade remedies system, be prepared to use them and not expect that not using such processes is always appropriate. That is why we must have the right membership, including from the trade unions, to protect jobs, as my hon. Friend has said, because otherwise we leave ourselves wide open.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

Can the hon. Gentleman be absolutely clear? I am intrigued. Is he saying therefore that he agrees with the US approach—not having a lesser duty rule and allowing these very large punitive tariffs to be put on British industry, Bombardier in this case, exporting to the United States? I think he is agreeing that he likes the US approach.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

That is not what I was suggesting. I am saying that we have to recognise that countries such as the US, as demonstrated by this case, are prepared to act. We have to be realistic about that. We have to make sure that we have the right representation on the TRA so that we are making the right case. I do not think 300% tariffs is a good idea at all, but we certainly need to be able to make the right judgments when such things apply. There is a balance between protectionism and the approach in the Bombardier case.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be foolish to look at one specific example of an outrageous situation, as we have had with Bombardier in the US? Thank goodness that the ITC came to the correct conclusion there. Just because it is possible to arrive at the wrong conclusion should not mean that one judges the lesser duty rule simply on that.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

Of course that is right. My hon. Friend deserves credit for taking the time and effort to go and meet the ITC and to make the case with the trade unions and others from this country. The lobbying that he and others were involved in played no small part in delivering for workers and business in the UK. He deserves a lot of credit for that. I will return to my speech—

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

What a good idea.

Matt Western (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

This reminds me of Saturday afternoons watching wrestling. [Laughter.] The crucial thing about the TRA is that it is a facilitator, not a barrier, to ensure the needs of sectors and those involved in the sectors, whether workers or businesses. That came across very clearly in the representations from witnesses last week as something they want. My hon. Friend mentioned the chairmanship. As with the Office for Budget Responsibility, it is crucial that the chair is seen as an important role and not some political lackey.

Bill Esterson (Labour, Sefton Central)

Yes, that is exactly right. The point is to get the balance between how the Conservative Government under David Cameron blocked attempts to use appropriate trade remedy measures to defend our steel industry and the excessive use of them by the Americans. That is what the new TRA should do and that is why it needs to have the right balance of membership.

The message from the evidence given by the witnesses last week was loud and clear: stakeholders want representation on the TRA. They want their voices to be heard and their concerns taken into account, and they want that guaranteed in statute, not through ad hoc discussions with the Government. George Peretz QC told us that the composition of the TRA

“ought to be balanced by statute and that it ought to reflect a variety of different perspectives.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 55, Q105.]

We also heard from James Ashton-Bell of the CBI, that:

“In anything where you are making choices about trade and how it will impact the wider economy, you should have a wide and balanced group of people advising Government, or an independent authority, about how to make those choices.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 25, Q54.]

Chris Southworth of the International Chamber of Commerce concurred, saying that

“the representation is a critical point. An independent body, yes, but there must be representation within that independent body to represent all the important voices”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 25, Q54.]

That responds to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington.

If the Minister will not listen to me, will he at least listen to business associations, industry representatives, trade unions, academics, QCs and civil society? They are all coming out against how he and his Department are going about this. I urge Members on all sides to support our three amendments, but if the inevitable happens and the Minister leads them into voting us down, I look forward to him bringing forward his alternatives later in proceedings.

Hannah Bardell (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies. It has been a fascinating debate. I want to say at the outset that we absolutely support our colleagues in the Labour party in their amendments, but have also tabled amendments 39, 38, 40 and 41, which I will speak to.

The legislation needs to be strengthened. Amnesty’s response was interesting. It said that an independent body with appropriate expertise should be established with a remit to conduct or commission assessment impacts of future free trade agreements on human rights, equality and the environment in the UK and of trading partners. This could be the proposed Trade Remedies Authority if it were given the resources, remit and powers.

On powers, it is important to remember that we are 20 years on from devolution. Devolution delivered huge changes across the nations of the UK. I can understand that many in England perhaps feel somewhat left behind, because we have moved on in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I have some sympathy with that but the point of the amendments is respecting devolution, and recognising the nations of the UK and the relationship that they have developed directly with the EU, and the importance of trade.

The Scottish Parliament was established to be accountable and answerable to the people of Scotland, to be open and encourage participation, to be accessible and to involve all the people of Scotland in its decisions as much as possible, and to have power sharing. That is an important point: power should be shared among the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland.

On the decisions about where the Trade Remedies Authority is physically located and about whether it will have non-exec members, decisions about the businesses and the people of each of the nations of the UK are best made as close to those people as possible. We understand that the functions of the Trade Remedies Authority will be reserved and it will undertake trade remedies investigations across the UK, but it is important that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers have a role in the Trade Remedies Authority.

Amendment 39 requires the Secretary of State to secure the consent of each of the devolved nations before appointing a chair to the Trade Remedies Authority. We feel it is only fair that we have a say in that matter. It is common practice for interview panels to be made up of people from a range of disciplines. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said that there will be a range of people, but I am sure he will have sympathy with my view that, although the west midlands is a very important part of the UK, it is not a country in the way that Scotland is. Since 2007, Scottish exports to the EU have grown by more than 25%. The EU market is eight times larger than the UK’s alone. Scotland exported £12.3 billion-worth of exports to the EU in 2015, and that figure is growing, so the EU is a hugely important market for us. It stands to reason that Wales and Northern Ireland must have a fair and proper say in who is appointed.

I sat on the Enterprise Bill Committee in 2016 when the Small Business Commissioner was created, and I thought that was an excellent idea. It was great to see ideas being taken from Australia. Forgive me for going slightly off topic for a second, Mr Davies, but at the time, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills made a lot of the fact that the Small Business Commissioner was based on the Australian model. I went to Australia and met the small business commissioner of Victoria and New South Wales. In Australia, there is an overall federal commissioner, individual state commissioners, and individual offices in each area of the country. In contrast, we have only one commissioner. It strikes me that this Bill mirrors that approach, in that the Trade Remedies Authority is centralised. That is my concern.

We genuinely want to ensure that the nations of the UK have a fair and proper say, which is why amendment 40 would require the Secretary of State to secure each devolved authority’s consent before removing the chief executive of the Trade Remedies Authority from office. In practice, having non-exec members on the TRA means that representation and influence from each of the devolved nations will be built into the authority. I am sure it is not beyond the wit of any authority, when it sets up a process, to establish consent through fair and proper human resources processes. It is interesting that Jude Kirton-Darling MEP said in evidence:

“There is a clear role for stronger scrutiny. Inside the legislation, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State or the new Trade Remedies Authority to engage directly with Parliament through, for example, a specific Committee of Parliament.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 45, Q88.]

I understand that this is uncharted territory for Parliament, but it would do us good, in terms of our international reputation and how we interact with business and stakeholders, to be seen to be agile, flexible and able to change our procedures to deal with whatever comes down the line. I do not want Brexit to happen. I do not want the UK or Scotland to leave the EU, and Scotland did not vote to leave it, but in this Bill we must take on board points made by not just parliamentarians and politicians, but businesses.

Amendment 41 would require the Trade Remedies Authority to maintain offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and require those offices to play a key role in ensuring that the views and needs of the devolved Administrations were safeguarded in the authority’s day-to-day-running. Establishing the UK Green Investment Bank in Edinburgh was, in fairness to the Conservative Government, a positive move. Lots of things have happened since then—things have changed somewhat—but the fact that it was established in Edinburgh and that there was cross-party consensus was positive. Why do the Government not take forward that good work and consider accepting our amendment?

Going back to my earlier point, ensuring that the decisions are made in the devolved nations would be recognition of the distinct nature of the nations of the UK and the differences in the way they do business with each other, with Europe and with the rest of the world. We all know that the Scotland Act 1998 was very careful to state that everything that is not expressly reserved is devolved. It is really important that we take that on board.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

On a point of order, Mr Davies. I have been listening to the hon. Member for Sefton Central and the hon. Member for Livingston, and it is clear that these are broad subjects. Will you confirm that it is not your intention to have an additional debate on schedule 4, and that given the scope of what is being discussed—not just the amendments but wider issues—this is in effect a stand part debate on schedule 4?

Hannah Bardell (Scottish National Party, Livingston)

I feel that it is important to make these broader points, because they are germane to the issue and to the amendments.

For us, the bottom line is ensuring that the devolved nations and the devolution settlements that were agreed on a cross-party basis are respected. That is absolutely at the heart of these amendments. I hope that we are able to get support for them, cross-party—and certainly from our Labour colleagues.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

May I start by correcting an inadvertent error I made earlier? I mentioned an agreement that was signed by the Secretary of State for International Trade with South Africa and SADC in August or September. It was actually earlier than that. It was signed in July by Lord Price. I know that the hon. Member for Brent North takes an interest in South Africa, so I will quote briefly from what was said:

“The Southern African Customs Union…has welcomed the UK’s intention to prevent disruption of trade relations with other countries as it leaves the European Union”.

I think that clears up where we are with South Africa.

Let me start by stressing that the Government recognise the important role that Parliament, industry stakeholders and the devolved Administrations play in building the UK’s future independent trade policy. We look forward to working with all those groups and organisations on the establishment and operation of the Trade Remedies Authority to ensure that their views and interests are taken into account where appropriate. However, these amendments are not appropriate to the creation of that new function.

Decisions on trade remedies cases can have profound effects on markets, so we need to create an independent and objective investigation process in which businesses and consumers have full confidence. That is why we are setting up the Trade Remedies Authority as an arm’s length body with the appropriate degree of separation from the Department for International Trade. The hon. Member for Sefton Central said that trade remedies are inevitably political. That is precisely why we are ensuring that investigation and evidence-gathering must be done independently.

Faisal Rashid (Labour, Warrington South)

James Ashton-Bell of the CBI told us that the fundamental question it has about the Trade Remedies Authority is

“who makes the ultimate decisions about when to take action and when not to take action.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 24, Q52.]

Given the lack of clarity about that, does the Minister agree that it is vital that appointment to and operation of the Trade Remedies Authority is as transparent as possible?

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

Yes, and the authority is very transparent in its operation. A lot of how the authority operates is outlined in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which is being debated down the corridor. I strongly feel that there is really good transparency in the arrangements we have made regarding the authority’s independence, arm’s length nature and specialist and independent evidence-gathering. We are also ensuring that it is accountable to the Government and that, at the end of the day, a political decision is still taken about whether to impose trade remedies.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I think we would all welcome a sense that this body was independent, so can it be right that one person with a particular view of trade should be empowered under the Bill to appoint every single member of the TRA, including the chair? Depending on the order in which they make the appointments, that is entirely possible under the Bill.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

No, it is not.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

The Minister is shaking his head, but under the Bill, so long as the Secretary of State appoints the chair last—there is nothing to prevent him doing that—he is empowered, absolutely on his own, to put his friends, cronies and the people who have his view of trade in every single position. He would then appoint the chair. If he appoints the chair first, he has to do the rest in conjunction with others.

Greg Hands (Conservative, Chelsea and Fulham)

Let me be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman. It is quite clearly laid out in the appointments procedure that the Secretary of State appoints the chair, and the other non-executives in consultation with the chair. In exceptional circumstances, the Secretary of State can appoint the chief executive, but only if the chair has not yet been appointed. That is laid out in the legislation. The executive members are not appointed by the Secretary of State. It is important to understand that the Secretary of State does not appoint the whole body.

On top of that, the appointments process of course follows good governance principles and rules on public appointments. For the benefit of the Committee, I will outline those rules. First, the Government are responsible for setting out the processes and principles that underpin the management of public bodies. Secondly, there are explicit rules on the roles of Ministers and Departments in the public appointments process. The rules outline the role of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who is the independent regulator of public appointments. I am sure they would take more than a casual interest in the TRA, were the case that the hon. Member for Brent North outlined to transpire.

The rules also include the governance code for public appointments. We have worked with governance experts in the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury to ensure that the TRA complies with those governance rules and others. The rules include guidance on managing public money and all the usual protections we would expect to see in an appointments process.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Will the Minister, in the light of his remarks, comment on schedule 4(2)(1)? It states:

“The TRA is to consist of…a Chair appointed by the Secretary of State…other non-executive members appointed by the Secretary of State…a chief executive appointed by the Chair with the approval of the Secretary of State or, if the first Chair has not been appointed, by the Secretary of State, and…other executive members appointed by the Chair.”

In other words, the majority of the Committee—all the non-executive members, the chair and the chief executive—can be appointed by one individual: the Secretary of State.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.