Barry Gardiner
MP for Brent West · Labour · United Kingdom
“Sir Desmond, imagine that the top brains in the country’s security and intelligence community produced a report that told you how to save the world. You would want to see it, right? Well, the report we are discussing is not about how to save the world; it is about what happens if we do not.”
“The nuclear threat will rise as clashes between nuclear powers become more frequent. Those are the cold assessments of the Joint Intelligence Committee. The Government were right to think that those assessments might scare people—they scare me—but they were wrong to think that they could hide them from the public.”
“The Minister will know that the grant structure on which UKRI is based gives out grants for a maximum of three to five years. Very few are for five years—most are for three years or under—yet the sort of long-term scientific development that my hon.”
“My hon. Friend is making a superb case for the importance of funding for her deep earth facility. I had the privilege of going to the National Oceanography Centre’s deep oceans facility, and the innovative science there on carbon sequestration is superb.”
“The Prime Minister has spoken powerfully about the devolution of power and giving back control. Will he therefore ensure that the proposals for commonhold and leasehold reform, for which 5 million leaseholders in this country are waiting with bated breath, do give that power and control back to those people, through the right to enfranchi…”
“We know how much land there is in the UK, and we know the extent of our inland waters and seas, so we can know how much we have to do to protect them, as we are required to do by target 3 of the global biodiversity framework.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,406 lines we hold for Barry Gardiner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 32 of 109.
“It is hardly surprising, then, that now that the Prime Minister has finally brought her deal back to the House of Commons, it is a deal that Members on both sides believe is not in the best interests of the country. She used to say, “No deal is better than a bad deal”; now the motto seems to be, “Any deal is better than no deal.” In fact, the Prime Minister’s deal is not actually a single deal at all: it is a package, in which there is one deal with binding commitments by the UK on the things that the EU demanded that we settled before we leave—money, citizens’ rights and the Irish border—and another proposed deal, which contains only a wish list, with no binding commitments on the EU on all the things that the UK would like in terms of our future political, trading and security relationship.”
“Perhaps the most serious error, though, was, as my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) said, to try to exclude Parliament from the process. The Government tried to exclude us on the triggering of article 50, on the impact assessments, on the right to a meaningful vote on the deal and on the financial modelling, and of course we argued that Parliament had the right to see the full legal opinion prepared by the Attorney General. Their refusal was a blunder that resulted in an achievement unique in a thousand years of our history: a Government being held to be in contempt of their own Parliament—ironic, given that Brexit was supposed to be about the sovereignty of this Parliament.”
“In fact, earlier this year in his Bloomberg speech, he presaged just such a situation. He said: “As rule takers, without any say in how the rules were made, we would be in a worse position than we are today. It would be a complete sell out of Britain’s national interests and a betrayal of the voters in the referendum.” But in a few minutes, he will stand at that Dispatch Box and urge hon. Members from across the House to vote for it. I can only admire his flexibility. So how did this mess come about? The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), excoriated the Government for their failure to prepare. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) focused on the rigidity of the Prime Minister’s red lines.”
“I know exactly what the Secretary of State said. In the following sentence, he said this would happen unless “politics gets in the way.” Clearly, politics has got in the way, but it is not the only thing. Yesterday, reality got in the way, with the release of the Attorney General’s written advice to Cabinet. The implications of this legal advice are that we could be locked into a position where the EU negotiates a new trade in goods agreement that might be beneficial for the EU but deeply disadvantageous to the UK. This could be a deal where we have no say in the negotiations but where the UK could be obliged to open up our markets, perhaps to the United States of America, without any reciprocal right of access for UK manufacturers into that US market. I know the Secretary of State will have reflected carefully on that outcome.”
“It proposes to remove parity-pay for posted workers; end limits on the hours that people can be asked to work; end the precautionary principle; say yes to pesticide residues and yes to hormone-disrupting chemicals in genetically modified organisms. Such regulatory divergence from the EU would substantially impact our ability to trade with our biggest, closest market. It would increase the risk profile—”
“President Trump made it clear that any trade agreement would involve aligning with American regulations and standards. Yes, of course, that means chlorine washed chicken, but it also means the US “Defect Levels Handbook”, which specifies the level of mice droppings or rat hairs that are permitted in our food—for example, 11 rodent hairs per 50 grams of cinnamon and 20 maggots per 100 grams of drained mushrooms. If anyone in this Chamber doubts it, they can read the handbook for themselves or they can see what is proposed by reading “Plan A+” launched by the original Brexit Secretary and by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees- Mogg) just recently.”
“But I do say, with the support of both the Treasury and the Bank of England, that it will be much poorer than we otherwise would be, by approximately 4% of GDP. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) spoke with clarity and passion about the differential impact that this would have on the poorest people and on the forgotten regions of our country, which need infrastructure investment. Let us examine the potential upside: the new free trade agreement that the Secretary of State is so keen for us to do, particularly with our single largest bilateral trading partner, the United States. We have a trade surplus with the USA—a trade surplus that President Trump is determined to overturn. Last week, he suggested that a deal may now no longer be possible because of the way in which this deal proposes to align with the EU.”
“The automotive sector— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Lady will understand that the purpose of summing up at the end of the day is to respond to all the comments, including hers, that have been made during the debate. That is what I will try to do. I visited the automotive sector with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith). I spoke to the management, the unions and the workers. Their sector represents £18 billion-worth of exports to the EU. It has benefited enormously from our EU membership, and particularly from the customs union, which has allowed companies to streamline their supply chains and employ just-in-time systems. I am not a pessimist about the future of our country. I do not say that the UK will be poorer if we accept the Prime Minister’s deal.”
“He said: “I believe the best way forward is for Britain to renegotiate a new relationship with the European Union—one based on an economic partnership involving a customs union and a single market in goods and services.” The Secretary of State may not like it, but it sounds an awful lot like Labour party policy to me.”
“Friend the shadow Chancellor set out an agreement that respects the key reasons why many people voted to leave—namely money, borders and law—and also ensures that we continue to have frictionless trade that protects our manufacturing industry’s just-in-time supply chains and the integrity of the United Kingdom. We are at a critical point in our history and business needs certainty and stability. Our children need an optimistic future. Our country is deeply divided. I started by quoting the Secretary of State and remarking how flexible he has been in acquiescing to this deal. I conclude my remarks, exhorting him to be yet more flexible still and to recall his own words, which were quoted in The Mail on Sunday on 16 September 2012.”
“The Government’s own assessment says that a no-deal Brexit would result in a reduction of 9.3% of GDP. Most MPs are clear: a no-deal Brexit cannot be allowed to happen. None the less, the Prime Minister is presenting her agreement as a binary choice between her deal and no deal. She urges MPs to vote for a deal that they firmly believe is not in the country’s best interest by threatening that if they do not, the consequences of no deal would be even worse. That is not an argument; it is blackmail. Most importantly, it is a false choice. Earlier today, my right hon.”
“Not at all. The Secretary of State will have read what President Trump has said recently. He knows that the President, as a protectionist, wants to put America first, not the UK. That regulatory divergence from the EU would substantially impact our ability to trade with our biggest and closest market. The Minister for Trade Policy recognised the same. He noted that, “If we come out of alignment with EU regulations in this area, then there is a penalty to be paid in terms of frictionless trade with Europe.” That comes from the Secretary of State’s own team. Even assuming that new trade deals are possible without these complications, what would these new agreements contribute to our GDP? The Bank of England has quantified any benefit at less than half a per cent—just 0.2% of GDP growth.”
“As, indeed, I twice welcomed the Secretary of State. Will he confirm whether he has seen Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs statistics on regional trade in goods for the third quarter that were published this morning? They show that all regions of the United Kingdom are importing more than they are exporting, and we therefore have a large balance of trade deficit.”
“The roundtable began at 1 pm and finished at 2.35 pm, lasting 95 minutes, and the Minister was present for at least 70 minutes. I contend that this would not, in any reasonable opinion, constitute dropping in on a meeting. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker. Has any request come from the Minister seeking an opportunity to come before the House to correct the record?”
“It would also appear that the Minister’s involvement in the meeting may not have been as casual as she suggested. During a Westminster Hall Debate on 10 July 2018, the Minister in fact claimed: “I did hold a very effective shale industry roundtable” —[ Official Report, 10 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 284WH.] A freedom of information request querying the nature of that roundtable received a letter in response where the Department stated that this was indeed “the Shale Roundtable that the Minister of State hosted on 21st May 2018”. By the Department’s own admission, this was a meeting the Minister had hosted, rather than dropped in on. The agenda of the meeting was also released under the FOI request. It reveals the extent to which the Minister was present.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to raise a point of order regarding a response I received from the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth at the last Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy oral questions. I asked the Minister why a roundtable with all the key fracking companies that she held on 21 May had not been declared on the transparency register. In response, she claimed that her officials did not disclose the meeting of 21 May because “the ministerial code does not require Ministers to disclose meetings that they drop in on, as opposed to host in their office” —[ Official Report , 20 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 715.] I have searched the ministerial code and can find no reference to a difference in disclosure requirements such as the Minister suggests.”
“What provision will be put in place for advice and support for the affected families? Has he spoken yet to Invest Northern Ireland and the officials at the Department for the Economy about the future of manufacturing in the Province? Finally, many ordinary people in Northern Ireland wish to know when the Government will make serious efforts to get the Northern Ireland Assembly back up and running so that issues such as these can be properly responded to at a local level.”
“The company has said that the job cuts are part of a global drive to cut costs, but a disproportionate number of the 5,000 Bombardier jobs to be cut globally are in Northern Ireland, representing more than 10% of the workforce there. Bombardier represents 8% of Northern Ireland’s GDP and 40% of its manufacturing output. What recent discussions has the Minister had with Bombardier regarding the global restructuring plans? Has he received any suggestion from the company that its restructuring plans have been influenced in any way by Brexit? When will he be travelling to Northern Ireland to meet the unions and the families affected? What discussions has he had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about securing alternative inward investment into Northern Ireland?”
“The trust and co-operation that was built up last year should have been respected and maintained, particularly when the company reported a 57% rise in its profits only nine months ago. The industry is not unused to coping with fluctuations in the workforce. In May 2015, at least 220 jobs were lost. In February 2016, it was announced that about 20% of the Northern Ireland workforce would go, with 580 jobs lost in 2016 and 500 in 2017. In April 2016, those job cuts were revised up from 580 to 630. In September and October 2017, another 375 job cuts were announced. These 490 proposed job losses are just the latest in a long line of redundancies at Bombardier. There have been more than 1,700 since May 2015. Such huge cuts to the workforce, so highly concentrated in one area, will have devastating consequences for entire communities.”
“I spoke to the unions there and I know what a relief it was when those unfair tariffs were not applied as a result of a ruling by the International Trade Commission and Commissioner Meredith Broadbent, whom I also met when I visited Washington to argue Bombardier’s case. I pay tribute to the way in which both Unite and GMB worked with Michael Ryan and Bombardier’s management at that time to fight those job losses, but I am sure the whole House will be disappointed that the same spirit of co-operation appears not to have been the case here and that Jackie Pollock, the Unite regional secretary, has indicated that the unions were not made aware of the extent and scale of the job losses that the management were contemplating.”
“The company employs 4,000 people across Northern Ireland as a whole, so this announcement will be a devastating blow, and not only to the 490 families who will be directly affected by it in the run-up to Christmas, because this involves an estimated 20,000 indirect jobs throughout the UK supply chains and many of those families may also be affected by the company’s decision. Downsizing its UK operations has significant implications for the whole of the UK and this matter is therefore of national public policy importance. For the Minister to say that the Government have no role here is simply unacceptable. I visited the plant in Belfast last year when the company was under attack from President Trump in his attempt to impose tariffs of 292% on Bombardier aircraft exported to the US.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. I would like to say, “And for advance sight of it”, but, as he will know, that was hardly the case. Indeed, when it was emailed to me less than 25 minutes before the end of business questions, I texted back to my office to ask whether it did indeed end at that point. I was advised, “Yes, that’s it.” That most certainly is not it. Bombardier’s presence is vital to the economy in Northern Ireland, representing 8% of Northern Ireland’s GDP and about 40% of the Province’s manufacturing output.”
“On 21 May this year the Minister met a number of renewable energy companies. That meeting was properly recorded on the ministerial register of meetings to ensure transparency. On the same day the Minister also met all the key fracking companies including Cuadrilla, INEOS, iGas and Third Energy. That meeting somehow failed to make it on to the transparency register. Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to apologise for the concealment of that information, and by way of penance would she like to confirm when she will finally visit local residents at Preston New Road to explain why the 36 earthquakes that have occurred since Caudrilla began fracking operations are simply the equivalent of dropping a bag of flour on their kitchen floors?”
“How many such intra-firm loans are in the FDI statistics, and what assessment has the Minister made of the reduction in tax receipts to the Exchequer as a result?”
“May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Sir Jeremy Heywood? I was delighted, if somewhat surprised, to see the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box this morning. He and his Ministers have talked about a record number of FDI investments in the last full year, 2017, but he knows that, in value, it was actually the worst year for inward investment since 1994. Complacently, he celebrates the forecast by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development for the first half of 2018, but he knows that the UNCTAD report states that this reflects “a surge in intra-firm loans”. These are loans that are often used to minimise tax by creating an artificial debt shield and they create no new jobs in the UK.”
“Yesterday, the Minister requested that the Committee on Climate Change update its advice on the action necessary to respond to the report on 1.5° by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For a brief moment, I thought she had done the right thing, but then I read her letter, which says: “Carbon budgets already set in legislation…are out of scope of this request.” The committee has already written to her twice, warning that the country is not on track to meet the lesser targets in those budgets. By saying that those budgets are out of scope, the Minister is pushing back the necessary change by 12 years. When did she become a follower of St Augustine—“Lord, make me virtuous, but not yet.”?”
“What proposals has the Secretary of State made to his counterparts ahead of this weekend’s G20 ministerial meeting to avert the threat by the President of the United States to pull the United States out of the World Trade Organisation, and to ensure that the WTO can continue to function despite America’s refusal to approve appointments to the WTO’s appellate body—or has he made no proposals?”
“There is now a three-week recess and many will feel that what I have referred to as a discourtesy is in fact an outrage.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At 9.55 this morning, ensuring it was then too late to question the Secretary of State at International Trade questions, his Department released a written statement saying it was concerned about breaches of export controls and the conduct of licence applicants. We have been challenging this Government for many months to tighten export controls in relation to military and dual-use goods in Saudi Arabia, Honduras and the Philippines. Is it not discourteous to this House to deny Members the opportunity to question Ministers on which companies have given rise to concern and which country destinations are suspected of illegitimate use? Have you, Mr Speaker, received any request from Ministers to come to this place and allow a proper discussion of these disturbing matters?”
“Such a debate must be supported by clear facts about: market growth opportunities; which barriers to trade are being removed or lowered; which sectors stand to gain or to lose; the impact on jobs in this country; and the rights afforded to foreign investors. That said, we believe that the Singapore free trade agreement as it currently stands could be a model for a future UK-Singapore relationship. Had we been voting on that agreement alone, we would have supported the Government’s decision to proceed with signing the agreement despite the appalling lack of facts and coherent analysis from the Government. That they have bundled that agreement together with the investment protection agreement, despite the clear policy and legal problems presented, means that we cannot possibly vote in favour of the motion.”
“Will the Minister tell us what assessment his Department has carried out in respect of that and precisely what it would mean for any agreement that the UK has entered into? In particular, if the UK has ratified such an agreement, exercising our own competence, as is the case with this agreement, could the agreement continue to apply even if struck down by the ECJ and thus no longer applicable across the remaining EU member states? Clearly a number of substantive issues have not been properly addressed thus far by the Government. The European Scrutiny Committee has quite properly sought clarification, but sadly the Government have not seen fit to respond properly and fully to those concerns. Parliament must be afforded an opportunity for a timely and informed debate on our trade agreements and future trade relations with other countries.”
“Worse still, the Government’s Trade Bill gives them the power to turn signed EU agreements into UK agreements even before they have been ratified by the EU, so at the end of 2020 we could be left in the absurd position whereby the EU-Singapore IPA has not been ratified but the UK has already copied its provisions into a UK-Singapore IPA, to replace our existing UK-Singapore BIT, and we are enforcing it unilaterally. Is it the Minister’s intention that we should be bound none the less by the EU-Singapore IPA even if that agreement should come into force years after we have left the EU? Of course, that remains somewhat dependent on the findings of the ECJ as to whether the investment court system and ISDS provisions are even compatible with EU law.”
“The IPA is a mixed competence agreement requiring ratification in each of the EU member states individually. The ratification process will not commence until after the European Parliament has completed its own ratification of the agreement. The European Parliament vote is scheduled for 2019, so the national ratification process will not commence across the European Union until after the UK has left the EU. We must remember that even if the EU’s trade agreements continue to apply to the UK during the transition period, the UK will no longer participate in the structures of the EU during that period.”
“Should the UK leave the EU prior to the IPA coming into force, what will be the governing agreement for the UK’s future relationship with Singapore? Will the Minister confirm that he is proposing to increase the protection afforded to Singapore companies wishing to challenge the UK Government from 10 years in the current bilateral investment treaty to 20 years, the sunset clause in the new agreement? It seems patently absurd to sign a document into force when the Minister admits: “It is not anticipated that the IPA will be ratified by all Member States, concluded by the EU and have entered into force before the UK’s exit from the EU, or indeed by the end of the Implementation Period.” The problem is far greater than the Minister seems to realise.”
“Recognising the flaws in the arbitration model of ISDS, the European Commission moved to a court-based system—the investment court system. That goes only some of the way to mitigating the risk of spurious claims being brought forward and ruled upon by pay-per-case arbitrators but does nothing whatever to address the perverse superior legal rights afforded to foreign investors, nor the underlying threat to public services and the ability of our Government to implement policy or to legislate in the public interest. Furthermore, the UK has already entered into a bilateral investment treaty with Singapore, which came into force on 22 July 1975. The Minister advised the European Scrutiny Committee that that agreement would be suspended should the EU-Singapore IPA come into force.”
“South Africa, India and New Zealand have all stated their opposition to them, and New Zealand has gone so far as to sign side letters with five counter-signatories to the Trans-Pacific Partnership disapplying the ISDS provisions included in that agreement. Their rationale is that their respective domestic court systems are adequately capable of settling any disputes. Indeed, if our courts are sufficient for British companies, why should they not be considered so for foreign investors too? The UK’s has long been considered a safe legal system and, a significant proportion of global trade is governed by legal documents indicating the UK as the applicable legal jurisdiction. Why, in any event, should British taxpayers be on the hook for the ordinary commercial risks faced by foreign investors?”
“It is increasingly likely that the UK could face costly and damaging dispute proceedings as more and more foreign investors are given such powers under these agreements, including the EU-Singapore investment protection agreement. The very threat of facing such a case, and the often substantial costs involved, even when the chance of winning is in the Government’s favour, can clearly deter Governments from pursuing actions in the public interest—a “regulatory chill” effect. It is not only European Governments who have expressed concerns about ISDS; many international Governments have refused to accept such chapters in trade agreements.”
“It has always seemed to me a curious irony that the Conservative party opposes the ECJ on the grounds that it is a supranational court, but sees no fundamental problem in allowing foreign investors the right to challenge and strike out domestic legislation introduced in the public interest through a supranational court—power and rights specifically not afforded to our domestic companies. The proliferation of ISDS can encourage treaty shopping, whereby investors restructure their activities and establish them in countries where they may benefit from ISDS mechanisms should they seek to effect policy change or to petition for compensation.”
“This effectively allows companies to sue Governments when they legislate in the public interest—for example, when introducing plain packaging for cigarettes, national insurance, minimum wages or the banning of fossil fuels. These provisions have become increasingly commonplace in new generation trade agreements, resulting in widespread international public outcry against deals such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.”
“It is because the progress of the investor protection aspects of the agreement with Singapore face the same opposition in principle, and lengthy delay in ratification, that the EU has seen fit to split out the agreement into two separate documents, such that a free trade agreement can be ratified post-haste, leaving the investment protection agreement to one side. The investment protection agreement contains an ISDS mechanism in the form of the investment court system, which has already been heavily criticised in the EU-Canada agreement. ISDS mechanisms give superior legal rights only to foreign investors to raise disputes against Governments in order to petition for compensation where their profits, or even potential profits, are impacted by legislative or public policy decisions.”
“Famously the Walloon Parliament in Belgium refused to ratify the trade agreement with Canada, because of concerns about its investment aspects—in particular the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. That is now repackaged as the investment court system. Belgium has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice, to seek a ruling as to whether the investment court system is even compatible with EU law. Neither France, Germany nor the Netherlands have ratified that agreement, with the Dutch Government waiting on the ECJ ruling before determining how to proceed. In Germany, the issue is being heard before their domestic constitutional courts to determine whether the ICS is compatible with the German constitution.”
“Do they consider that it is, in fact, the best agreement for the future trade relationship between the UK and Singapore, rather than the EU and Singapore? I now come to the investment protection agreement: the initial agreement between the EU and Singapore was referred to the European Court of Justice, which ruled in May 2017 that it touched on matters that were in the competence of member states and not of the EU operating under the common commercial policy. Specifically, the Court found that portfolio investment and investor protection aspects of trade agreements could not be concluded by the Commission without having been ratified by each member state at national and regional level, where appropriate. That followed widespread public outcry and political opposition across the European Union.”
“However, the legal application of that remains entirely unclear, and the House has been given little confidence that the Government believe they may be able to ensure such participation in the relevant trade agreements, or that a corresponding future trade agreement can be concluded in short order between the UK and those third countries. Have the Government received formal confirmation that the UK can participate in the trade agreements in question during the withdrawal period—from Singapore or, indeed, any of the third countries with which the EU has an agreement? Have the Government received formal confirmation from Singapore that it will not seek to negotiate any substantive changes to the terms of the agreement?”
“Perhaps the Minister will tell us what formal consultation his Department has undertaken with business that has led it to conclude that reading time is the real issue to be faced in relation to the trade agreement with Singapore. The Minister knows that after Brexit he cannot simply divvy up any EU impact assessment and pluck future specific UK figures from general EU ones. Why does his Department not undertake proper assessments now? Under the terms of the draft withdrawal agreement the Government have sought to ensure that the deal with Singapore, among others, will continue to apply to the UK even once we have ceased to be members of the EU, until the end of the transition period.”
“Having conducted no assessment of the existing non-tariff barriers to trade, and having failed to carry out a meaningful review of the impact of the trade agreement on our economy as a whole, the Government have instead focused on the potential costs to businesses of reading the trade agreement. Annex D of the impact assessment suggests that the only costs to business will be as a result of the time it will take people to read the text. The Minister should know that that is being openly laughed at by trade commentators and analysts. That the Department has expended time and resource on calculating how long it took to read the agreement, but has not committed any resource to investigating what it will mean for jobs in the United Kingdom, is farcical. It is no substitute for a proper analysis of the real impact on business.”
“Certainly, it is right that Scotch whisky should be afforded protected status in the Singaporean agreement. However, what about all our other famous quality produce—Scottish salmon, Welsh lamb and beef, Jersey Royal potatoes, Stilton cheese and many more—which qualifies for protected status but which the Government have not sought to protect? The Government have made a choice. They would prefer a flood of cheaper imports, even if that would destroy those sectors and put an end to some of our special heritage producers. Trade negotiations are always about balancing consumer and producer interests, but many now believe that the Government have got that balance wrong. They are prioritising reductions in consumer prices over economic growth, export growth and jobs growth.”
“It does not provide a clear explanation of its reasons for believing this to be the case within the IA, but has provided relevant evidence in subsequent correspondence.” The Minister should have faced up to these questions. Some of them were presented by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. The listing of geographical indications is another matter, and one that this Government seem minded to forget or ignore. If the Government were serious about growing our exports and opening up opportunities for British businesses overseas, one might imagine that they would follow the example set by other nations and seek protections for our famous products. We saw precisely zero geographical indications listed by the UK in the Canada trade agreement. The Singapore agreement lists just one.”
“It would have also been beneficial had the Department acknowledge possible increases in UK unemployment (especially for certain skills) as a result of increased competition faced by UK firms. The Department expects imports from Singapore to increase by £607 million in the long-run. Given the size of the potential increase in imports the assessment would have benefited from a more detailed analysis of how this could impact UK firms.” On the balance of trade, that Committee said: “The Department argues that the FTA has a positive impact on UK GDP despite the fact that increases in UK imports (£607 million in the long run) are expected to be greater than increases in UK exports (£296 million in the long run).”
“In the RPC’s initial review notice, the Department was asked to consider possible costs to the UK of greater market access such as skilled labour migration and/or greater competition for EU public procurement contracts. The Department did not include a discussion of these costs. The assessment would have benefited from providing a more balanced perspective on the costs and benefits of greater market access.” Regarding job losses, the Regulatory Policy Committee said: “The assessment acknowledges that UK businesses may become less price competitive and experience a fall in domestic production. The Department should provide analysis of which sectors would be most affected by increased competition.”
“In fact, the Regulatory Policy Committee, in its report of 29 June, made trenchant criticisms in precisely this area, saying: “The assessment should provide a more balanced analysis on the effects of competition resulting from trade liberalisation. For example, the Department states that UK firms will benefit from being able to bid for Singapore public procurement contracts but does not mention the increased competition for UK public procurement contracts resulting from EUSFTA. The Department outlines the impacts of greater market access between the UK and Singapore but does not mention the impacts on the UK of greater market access between the EU and Singapore. The assessment should provide a discussion of how the EUSFTA could lead to Singapore competing with the UK for EU business.”