Trade Bill January 2021 Debates
Thank you for your recent emails in advance of the Trade Bill debates on 19 January 2021.
I know that there are several campaign related emails circulating about the Bill. I have sought to review the issues arising in the emails but due to the shear amount of emails that I am receiving now, I regret that I can not provide a bespoke response to all you. Please forgive me. I hope that the response is helpful but if you have further queries, please get in touch. Email [email protected].
It is a big read, but there is a lot to say on this topic and so it would be remiss of me not to spend the time penning my position to you, I hope you can understand that.
Firstly….
Trade Bill Scrutiny
I have received many previous emails from constituents about the scrutiny process of trade deals, and I agree that Parliament should be able to scrutinise trade policy and free trade agreements. It has an important role in debating and scrutinising the Government’s domestic and foreign policies.
That is why I am glad that the Government has made several important steps in enhancing Parliamentary scrutiny of trade policy. This includes sharing extensive and comprehensive information with Parliament ahead of negotiations with the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Public consultations have and will continue to be held prior to negotiations to inform the Government's approach. Ministers have also published their negotiating objectives prior to the start of trade talks and held open briefings for MPs and Peers.
Regular updates are provided to Parliament on the negotiations. I know that my Ministerial colleagues at the Department for International Trade will also be engaging closely with the International Trade Committee and the Lords International Agreements Committee as negotiations progress.
There is also some concern, however, that the amendment made in the House of Lords could place restrictions on the Government’s ability to enter treaty negotiations and to ratify treaties. Ministers have said that giving Parliament a veto over negotiating objectives would curtail the royal prerogative and would limit the flexibility to negotiate in the best interests of the UK.
The Government has told MPs that it is committed to a transparent trade policy with comprehensive engagement with Parliament. While I cannot support the amendment for the reasons mentioned above, please rest assured that I will continue to monitor the opportunities for Parliamentarians to scrutinise new trade policy in the future, and I will seek to raise views as appropriate.
New Clause 17. Trade Bill and the NHS
I have been your MP for over a year, and I am sure that most of you will know that I have a family background in the NHS coming from a family of GPs and medical professionals. I have practiced in GP surgeries and hospitals. I care passionately about the NHS; the way that the NHS has responded to the acute challenges of Covid is a national inspiration. However, I have been unable to support new Clause 17 and the more recent amendment 11 that was tabled in the House of Lords for what I believe are sensible and practical reasons.
I note that Trade Bill is a continuity Bill. The powers within the Bill could not be used to implement new free trade agreements with countries such as the US. Instead, the Bill only allows for trade agreements that we have been party to through our EU membership to be transitioned into UK law. I am pleased that no future trade agreement will be allowed to undermine the guiding principle of the NHS: that it is universal and free at the point of need.
I welcome the Government’s clear and absolute commitment that the NHS will be protected in any future trade agreement. Indeed, the price the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table and nor will the services the NHS provides. Having spent my entire professional life in the NHS I am fully wedded to the basis and principles it was founded on, that has not changed.
Trade Bill and the ‘Anti-Genocide’ Amendment
While I was unable to attend due to a diary clash, my staff attended the launch of the World Watch List report 2021 from Open Doors on 13 January 2021 and I am advised that issues reflecting on the relationship between future trade and the UK and the concepts of championing religious belief, and Freedom of Religion and Belief. I am currently reflecting further on those arguments. You can read more about the report via this link:
https://www.opendoorsuk.org/news/latest-news/world-watch-list-2021-live/
I note that China is mentioned in the report. Plus, the ever growing evidence emerging from China about what is happening to certain sectors of their society can’t be ignored. I also note that the crimes perpetrated against the Uyghur people and the Chinese population more widely are well-documented in a range of sources. I condemn them absolutely. I have made previous representations to Ministers about this very concerning issue, and will continue to follow this hugely important topic up as best as possible.
As a signatory to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the UK has a role in bringing perpetrators of the crime to justice. The UK has long promoted human rights. Ministers have been clear that increased trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. Trade agreements often contain suspensive clauses in the event of human rights abuses.
I support the ultimate aim of the amendment, but I worry that this is not the right tool to achieve what we all want: the persecution of the Uyghur to stop. The mechanism it proposes to achieve this would have significant legal consequences. It would alter the UK constitutional system by allowing courts to frustrate trade agreements agreed by the Government and ratified by Parliament. I understand that the amendment would establish a profound shift in the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.
So in short, I don’t believe the judiciary should have the potential to decide over elected politicians decisions, while this seems a potentially procedural argument, I believe it is fundamental to how our democracy runs and not matter how well intended a topic is, I don’t believe this amendment in a trade bill is the correct way to deal with this issue.
There is also the practical issue. While China is an important economic partner to the UK, there are no plans to negotiate a free trade agreement with the country, so therefore having this clause does not change an outcome and help the Uyghur. The Trade Bill itself also only focuses on continuity agreements rather than new trade agreements.
All the above said, I believe there is rightfully a growing concern from across the world over what is reportedly happening in China, and I will be following up with government on its promise to acknowledge the principles of what has been tabled here, even if they and I don’t believe it is the right place. If you would like sight of the ministers response please do let me know.
Trade Bill and Food Standards
This is another issue that I am aware is causing considerable concern in our area, and I have been monitoring debate about this issue with interest. I may have stated previously to you that the Trade Bill will not undermine food standards, please do check my website as I have written about this several times and raised questions in parliament, you can see here: https://www.drlukeevans.org.uk/news/response-constituent-emails-about-food-environment-and-agriculture-issues
The powers within the Trade Bill cannot be used to implement new free trade agreements with countries such as the US, Australia or New Zealand. Instead, the Bill can only be used to roll-over the free trade agreements that the UK has been party to through its EU membership.
I know that my Ministerial colleagues have no intention whatsoever of lowering standards in transitioned trade agreements, as the very purpose of these agreements is to replicate as close as possible the effects of commitments in EU agreements. You will be pleased to hear that none of the 20 continuity agreements signed have resulted in standards being lowered.
Although future trade agreements are outside the scope of the Trade Bill, the Government has made a clear and absolute commitment to uphold the UK’s high animal welfare, environmental, food safety and food import standards in any future free trade agreement. I know Ministers do not intend to compromise the UK’s domestic welfare production standards either and I welcome the creation of the Trade and Agriculture Commission to advise the Secretary of State on protecting these standards while capitalising on trading opportunities.
I am glad that the Government is amending the Trade Bill to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing and confirming that the body will produce a report, to be laid in Parliament at the start of each 21-day scrutiny period, on the impact on animal welfare and agriculture arising from each new free trade deal.
Without exception, all animal products imported into the UK under existing or future free trade agreements from all trading partners, including the EU and others, will have to meet our stringent food safety standards, as they do now. The UK’s independent food regulators will continue making sure that all food imports into the UK comply with those high standards.
Conclusions
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me about the Trade Bill debates. It is a very important piece of legislation but I also wanted to highlight some other policy developments that might be of interest.
Another area in which I see our new trade policy taking shape to support British businesses is through the UK Global Tariff (UKGT) which has been tailored to the needs of the UK economy. The UKGT will be simpler and easier to use than the EU Common External Tariff (CET) as it is calculated in pounds, lowers tariffs and entirely removes all ‘nuisance tariffs’ previously set at below 2 per cent. Overall, with the UKGT just under 50 per cent of products will be zero tariff, compared to 27 per cent under the CET.
The development of a network of UK Freeports is another exciting opportunity that our newly autonomous trade policy enables.
Only this week I wrote in support of securing a Freeport in the East Midlands, and will be working with colleagues cross party to try to secure this.
The Freeports model that I know my colleagues envision would see these zones having different customs rules and facilitation measures as well as more tariff flexibility. This will unleash the potential of our historic ports by attracting more global trade and inward investment, building innovative business clusters that generate highly skilled local jobs and help to drive regeneration in some of the most deprived areas in the UK. There is an interesting proposal for such a Freeport near to East Midlands Airport which I am following with interest.
As we recover from the economic impact of coronavirus, I believe free trade will be central to creating growth opportunities for British businesses. The Trade Bill is an important part of this work andt other positive measures will help too. It will be a changeable time but I look forward to the future.
I wish you well as we move further into 2021.