Trade Bill Amendments

Thank you to the many constituents getting in touch with me regarding the recently voted on Trade Bill amendments.  

The Trade Bill is a continuity Bill, and it cannot be used to implement new free trade agreements with countries such as the US. Rather, the Trade Bill is designed to enable the free trade agreements that the EU had signed with third countries before the UK exited the EU.  

On food standards, the Government has consistently been clear that it will not compromise on our standards. Our manifesto, to which we were all elected individually and collectively, is clear that in all our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. We remain firmly committed to upholding our high environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards outside the EU and the EU Withdrawal Act will transfer all existing EU food safety provisions, including existing export requirements, onto the UK statute book. 

These import standards include a ban on using artificial growth hormones in domestic and imported products and set out that no products, other than potable water, are approved to decontaminate poultry carcases. Decisions on these standards are a matter for the UK and will be made separately from any trade agreement. 

All imports must meet our strict food safety standards. All food safety will be carried over into UK law when we leave the transition period. Parliament retains final say over such standards, it can block any changes should it wish to do so. Amendments demanding that all agricultural imports meet our domestic production standards could have negative effects for UK food supply, UK food manufacturers who rely on imports, the price of goods in the shops and the ability of developing countries to sell to the UK. 

You can see some more specific details on legislation below: 

The legislation for the hormones in beef ban is contained in EU legislation 2003/74/EC, the provisions of which now form part of UK law. 

On chlorinated chicken – retained EU law under Section 3 of the WA. Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 defines ‘potable water’ as water meeting the minimum requirements laid down in Directive 98/83/EC. 

(4)     Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. It provides that food business operators are not to use any substance other than potable water to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin, unless the use of the substance has been approved in accordance with that Regulation. 

Regarding scrutiny, Parliament will retain, through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (CRAG), the right to block any treaty from being ratified. Free Trade Agreements cannot change UK law. Parliament will retain the right to reject any domestic implementing legislation necessary for a trade treaty. By blocking any legislation, should it be required, it can also block ratification. This is in line with similar systems such as Canada. It goes further than countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where Parliament cannot directly block ratification of a trade treaty. Any trade treaty will be made public before ratification, Parliament will be able to act should it choose to do so having seen all the draft text. Government has committed, where time allows, for a report to be drafted by the relevant committee before ratification takes place to allow for independent scrutiny. 

On the so called ‘Genocide amendment’ there were specific reasons for voting this one down. I know that the amendment is well meaning but it would actually be ineffective and counterproductive.  

It would be absurd for any UK government to wait for the human rights situation in a country to reach the level of genocide, which is the most egregious international crime before halting free trade agreement negotiations. 

At the same time, every campaigner against free trade would seek to use that legal provision to delay or halt FTA negotiations by tying the government up in litigation that may last months—if not years—with no plausible genocide concluded at the end. 

Finally, although I think it is right that the courts determine whether the very specific and technical legal definition of genocide is met in any given situation, it would be quite wrong for a Government or for Members of Parliament to subcontract to the courts our responsibility for deciding when a country’s human rights record is sufficiently bad that we will not engage in trade negotiations. Parliament’s responsibility is to determine when sanctions take place and with whom we negotiate. 

I want to add how disgraceful it is to be suggesting that this has anything to do with voting against supporting the Uighur population in Xinjiang, China. I share all constituents’ concerns at the shameful and gross human rights abuses taking place which includes forced labour and extra-judicial detention.  

The government also has no intention Post-Brexit of signing a free trade deal with China. 

The government also recently announced measures over the human rights abuses in Xinjang: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-announces-business-measures-over-xinjiang-human-rights-abuses 

There was also a rigorous debate on this on 12th January which you can see on the link below: 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-01-12/debates/C7E8DDAA-46C2-4A47-B2D6-BBBEE0A99B76/XinjiangForcedLabour 

The government last year also introduced sanctions under a new global human rights scheme: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-announces-first-sanctions-under-new-global-human-rights-regime 

Finally, on the NHS amendment it was not necessary to back this. 

As I stated at the start of my post the Trade Bill is a continuity Bill and it cannot be used to implement new free trade agreements with countries such as the US. It is designed to enable the free trade agreements that the EU had signed with third countries before the UK exited the EU.  

63 of these have been agreed and in all of them the NHS is protected from specific exclusions, exemptions and reservations. None of these deals has affected our ability to protect the NHS. It will also remain a priority to protect the NHS in any future trade agreements.  

The government and I are extremely grateful for all the work done by the NHS throughout this pandemic and this idea that it would then be sold off to foreign corporations is absurd. 

If you would like to discuss this further or any other matter, then please do not hesitate to contact me. 

cherilyn.mackrory.mp@parliament.uk