Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I think the Minister has got the message—[Laughter.] No, I am being serious. We cannot go on like this. We cannot keep on turning up and debating like this, and taking no action. The Minister is effective and has got the message, and I think that over the next few weeks we might see some action. I desperately hope so.

We have all been talking about physical infrastructure and the annexation of the west bank, but I also want to talk about what the Israelis are doing to civil society, and mention two cases that I have been raising over the last few weeks. About two weeks ago, the house in Ramallah of Dr Mazen al-Rantisi, known on the west bank as the doctor of the poor, was raided and he was arrested. We have not seen or heard from him since, and we do not even know where he is detained. He is chair of the Union of Health Work Committees on the west bank. It is registered with the Palestinian Authority, but it has been declared illegal by the Israelis. We do not know why, as no grounds have been put forward. Will the Minister convey to the Foreign Office that we need information about where Dr al-Rantisi is, and how we can get him some independent access and assessment?

The second case is more worrying for me. Dr Hussam Abu Safiya has now been in solitary confinement for 18 months. His lawyer visited him last week—we all got the message, didn’t we? His lawyer saw him. It looked as though he had been interrogated again, and tortured, and his lawyer said that he could not sit up straight and was falling over. In addition, his lawyer said, “I actually think his life is now at risk.” I raised the issue in the House 10 days ago, and directly with the Foreign Office Minister, and we got an assurance that it would be raised by the FCDO.

I have been here long enough to know that, in other such instances, the country’s ambassador has been brought in and given a clear view of the Government’s position. With regard to Dr Safiya, all we are asking for is access to an independent medical assessment, so that he can be assessed and receive some treatment, rather than being tortured in the way he is being. I raise that because I have fear that if we do not take some action, within a few weeks, he may no longer be alive.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to get on record what has happened in my constituency, because I said to my constituents that I would. With the expansion of Heathrow airport, land prices have gone up. Manufacturers have moved to cheaper areas, often with grants, and in the former manufacturing areas, a large number of flats have been built. I would normally welcome that, but the prices of those flats are prohibitive for local people. However, a large number of young people—bless them—have done everything they can to raise the £300,000 or £350,000 needed to buy one of those small flats. They have new homes, and we have welcomed them into the community, but we are now getting a flood of constituents coming to see us because the increase in service charges has pushed them over the edge.

In response to surveys, young people have explained in heartfelt terms, “We’ve not had a family because we can’t afford a family.” Some of them have tried to sell on, but some got a grant to buy their flat and have to pay it back, so they are caught in a Catch-22 situation. They say to me, “Here are the service charges, and this is what we get.” The service is absolutely appalling. We have had numerous examples of that. I understand the call for regulation and a regulator, and I agree with them, but the best form of regulation is to give ownership to the people living in the properties. My simple message to the Government is: please deliver the Law Commission’s remaining recommendations on enfranchising people to manage.

Another issue that has come up time and again is developmental value. This is an issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) has been campaigning since the early 2000s. It is ludicrous that people have to pay up front for a development that might never happen, and that might be costed by the freeholder. That prevents people from buying or selling on. The Law Commission has made a key recommendation on this point, and I urge the Government to act on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned that the threshold for participation in a move to commonhold is set at 50%. In other areas, that does not apply; for example, the threshold for tenant management organisations is 20%. We are now removing such onerous criteria from employment rights legislation, because they prevent participation. In areas like mine, a lot of properties are owned by overseas landlords, and it is very difficult to get them to participate in any way. The request is that we move the threshold to 35%; that is reasonable and manageable.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) that 40 years is too long to wait before changing the situation regarding ground rent. We will have the WASPI women banging on our door soon, won’t we? I know of no other issue on which there has been a 40-year notification period. The recommendation is to get it down to 20 years. I would get rid of ground rent now, because I think it is wealth extraction in return for no service whatsoever.

Finally, I turn to the Government’s proposals for ensuring that lease extensions and freehold acquisitions are cheaper overall. Ultimately, they will benefit a large number of our constituents, but they need to be implemented as rapidly as possible, which is why I welcome the Bill. I hope that the new regime allows us to get this legislation through as fast as possible.

Human Rights: Supply Chains

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate, which is much needed. Also, it is not often that I thank an Everton supporter for anything, but thank you very much, Mr Dowd, for stepping into the breach.

A number of organisations have been working incredibly hard with me and other Members on a number of fronts relating to this issue for some time. I thank the Corporate Justice Coalition, which is a large coalition of organisations. I thank the TUC and my own union, Unison, for circulating briefings. I also thank Anti-Slavery International; ActionAid; Sarah Benn Gordon, who put together a range of information for me; and the wonderful House of Commons Library.

The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is an excellent piece of work, not surprisingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) has gone, but he is a specialist in Aristotle, and we can see the logic in the report. I have read the Government’s response and want to make sure that I have it clear; the Minister can clarify later in the debate. First, the response says that the Government share the Committee’s concerns and accept that there are real worries about global supply chains and that we have to ensure that, as a country, we are not complicit. Secondly, it states that

“the Government is actively exploring options to strengthen protections.”

Thirdly, it states—as hon. Members have noted—that their response will be based on the trade strategy review that was launched some time ago, which aims to ensure that we have responsible business conduct in supply chains and companies operating in the UK.

I found it interesting that the Government’s response listed exactly the same concerns, about

“human rights, labour rights, the environment, and anti-corruption”

and said that there has to be due regard to the costs of implementation. It then listed the Departments engaged in the review as

“the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Cabinet Office”.

There was no reference to the Treasury whatsoever—nor, seemingly, to the Financial Conduct Authority or the Bank of England.

The small point I want to make is that the finance sector seems to have been excluded from the whole debate. It is certainly not covered in any of the reports so far. We need to be concerned. It is not just about goods in; our concern is about finance out and the scale of investment by the City and by our finance sector, unfortunately, in abusive business practices around the globe. That investment is sometimes funded by money that has been laundered into the City and then laundered out. I remind people that only a few years ago the City of London was described as the “Russian laundromat” due to the Russian oligarchs’ money that was coming in and then invested in a whole range of schemes that abused human rights and brought about environmental degradation.

That is why I want to know whether the finance sector will be included in the overall review. At the moment, we largely rely on the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive to cover the finance sector. The problem is that the omnibus proposed in 2025 watered down the role that would play and the requirements within it. There is also a finance exemption. A large section of the finance sector is completely exempt, so investment and lending are largely exempt in terms of the requirements on due diligence. It also excludes down- stream partners—the companies they invest in.

Additionally, there is no reference to shadow banking at all. Shadow banking is going on at the moment virtually unregulated. There is other legislation, such as the EU sustainable finance disclosure regulation, but there are various interpretations of how asset managers could comply with that. In addition, we have a situation where compliance is virtually voluntary. Certainly, it is unclear and unmonitored.

We then rely on treaties and memoranda of understanding, but the standards that relate to human rights abuse and labour rights abuse are not consistently applied in treaties. A report from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I served on at the time, found that treaties and memoranda of understanding are virtually devoid of parliamentary scrutiny. We never debate treaties on the Floor of the House. There is no central register of memoranda of understanding from which we could get some comprehension of what they cover and so on.

As a result of that, there are numerous examples of the implications of the unregulated nature of our finance sector with regard to human rights abuse and environmental degradation. My questions are: will any new supply chain regulation cover the finance sector; if it does, what consultations will take place to ensure the sector is included; who will be involved in those consultations; and as my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green asked, what will the timescale be? We are waiting—the “soon” we heard is becoming a long soon.

I do not want to take up too much of the debate so I will shut up at this point, but there is always this argument that finance regulation somehow restrains the animal spirits and as a result undermines growth. Actually, in the finance sector, my word is my bond, and nothing is more important that trust and confidence. As a result, proper regulation is required to maintain that trust.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I am pleased that the right hon. Member referred to my generosity, which extends even to Liverpool supporters.

Employment Rights Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

The Salisbury convention applies. The unelected Chamber should not block mandates, and the Government should not capitulate to such pressure. Given a majority of this scale, the authority lies in this House. Ministers who can intervene overnight to save the steel industry—quite rightly—can intervene to honour a manifesto commitment. We on this side campaigned for the full package. We would vote for all provisions of the Employment Rights Bill, without any dilution.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

We have worked on this legislation for more than 20 years. I just want to put it on the record for my constituents that I wish to abide by the manifesto commitment of day one rights, and I believe it is breaking a promise not to do so. However, other matters will be consulted on now. Some in the House of Lords may take confidence from the Government’s acceptance of this; can we send them the message that we will not in any way compromise any further on this legislation, that we will dig in, and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) has said, we will sit for as long as possible, if necessary, to see it through?

[Andy McDonald]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. I think that this episode highlights, again, flaws in the upper House, but even with the convention of double insistence, the concession goes too far.

Employment Rights Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

May I give Members a brief reminder that we are today talking to the new clauses and amendments on trade unions, industrial action, enforcement of labour market legislation, and miscellaneous and general provisions?

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wish to deal with new clauses 8 and 9, which relate to recognition of the POA’s right to strike. I therefore also declare that I am an honorary life member of the POA. The word “honorary” means that there is no financial relationship, and I am assured that I would not even get a south-facing cell or an extra pillow.

New clauses 8 and 9 try to restore the fundamental right of prison officers to take industrial action in its various forms. The union has existed for 90 years and, although organised as a trade union, it has never taken any form of industrial action that has endangered the prisoners the officers care for, other staff or the wider community. Through all of its long history, there was an industrial relations climate in which negotiations took place and disputes were resolved.

Then in 1994, the Conservative Government, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, made it a crime to induce any prison officer to take strike action, or even to work to rule. The trade union was told very clearly that that would be a criminal act and any trade union officer organising action, even a work to rule, could be prosecuted. What the Government then did—this was why people became extremely cynical at the time—was to plan increases in the pension age, make extensive salary cuts and cut staff numbers. There was no way the union could fight back in any form to protect its members.

Some hon. Members who were about at the time may recall that, in 2019, the POA faced high six-figure fines in the High Court. When it took action on health and safety grounds by convening meetings of members, it was threatened with legal action and the union leaders were threatened with imprisonment. Ironically, it would have been interesting to ask who would lock them up—but that is another question altogether.

When the police had their right to strike taken away, it was almost like a covenant and they were given very specific commitments around how they would be protected on pay, pensions and conditions of work. That was never offered to the POA and there was never any negotiation like that, where it would at least be given some security in return for the loss of that right. That was never given.

The POA took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights in 2024 and the case was accepted. The Court urged the Government to engage with the union in good faith over what remedies would be available. The then Government refused to engage and the current Government are still not engaging, so one of the reasons for tabling the new clauses is to urge the Government to start engaging with the union around that particular issue.

All the union is asking for is that its members be treated like any other workers and for the Government to engage. The right to strike in Scotland was restored 10 years ago and there has been no strike action since. That has created an industrial relations climate that is conducive to working together—not to entering into conflict but to negotiating problems out. I think that that is a result of both sides knowing that there is the alternative, if necessary, of taking part in industrial action.

As most people know, industrial action in public services is often not a strike; it is usually a work to rule to start off negotiations. I have been a member of a trade union for 50 years; I have been a trade union officer, a lay official and so on. Every union that I have known, where there is any form of industrial action that in any way involves a public service, always puts in place negotiated arrangements to protect the people that they are serving—that is not just life and limb protection, but often ensures a standard of service that is still acceptable to people. I therefore urge the Minister to get back round the table with the POA.

There was a debate in Committee on this matter, which angered people and angered me. I have gone over the debate. It showed a shameful disrespect for prison officers and an ignorance of the role that they play and the working environment that they work in. There are references to screws and guards and things like that, and about how, somehow, if the right were restored, the union would allow prisoners to run amok and put the whole community at risk. That is never the case—it never has been and never would be. There is a lack of understanding about what those workers put up with. As many hon. Members know, there is overcrowding. Prison officers deal with prisoners with huge mental health issues, drug problems and health problems overall. There are record levels of violence in prisons and prison officers are injured almost daily as a result of assaults.

I have to say that the disrespect demonstrated in the Committee was part and parcel of the demoralisation of even more of our workers in those key roles. I therefore ask the Minister to re-engage, to get back round the negotiating table and to recognise that the issue will not go away. These members want their basic trade union rights back and, if necessary, they will go back before the European Court. I believe they will win and that we will, unnecessarily, go through another period in which the demoralisation of workers continues because of people’s lack of respect for their basic trade union rights. We are suffering real problems in recruitment and retention, so I urge the Government just to take that one step back to the negotiating table with the POA.

[Becky Gittins]

I rise in support of Government new clauses 57 and 58. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my proud trade union membership.

I ask the Opposition to consider their comments today in what has proved to be a very ideologically driven debate on their part. I feel somewhat as if I have been transported back in time to a previous reforming Labour Government’s last upgrade to employment rights—the minimum wage debate. This afternoon’s fearmongering about productivity, growth and unemployment is reminiscent of it. We also have seen some crossover in the personnel who were part of the Conservative opposition. The then shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), said that the minimum wage would

“negatively affect…not hundreds of thousands but millions of people.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2017; Vol. 297, c. 526.]

Employment Rights Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy]

I do not see why the Government should not support this new clause. This seems to be an obvious example of labour market abuse, but the difference with many of the provisions in the Bill is that my new clause does not directly benefit trade unions who pay for the Labour party.

Sadly, we know that there have been many sexual assaults and attacks committed by substitute workers. New clause 105 proposes the robust regulation of substitution clauses. Amazon, Uber, Deliveroo and the rest would have to do their due diligence and, just like everyone else, ensure that all their riders are who they say they are and have the right to work in this country. Introducing such a change would reduce labour abuse, protect our communities and deliver a fairer labour market.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Just to inflame matters more, I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group as well.

Next Monday is the third anniversary of the P&O scandal. Members might recall what happened: 800 members of staff—RMT members, largely—turned up for work and were sacked by video. Many of them were marshalled off their vessels by trained bouncers and guards who dealt with them roughly. The reaction across the House and across society was that this was repellent and should not happen in a civilised society. The Labour party then made a commitment that it would introduce legislation that would install in law the seafarers’ charter, and that is exactly what the Bill does, so I welcome it wholeheartedly and congratulate the Minister on doing this. But as he can guess, we see this as just the first step, because there is so much more to do, particularly in this sector, where many workers are still exploited compared with shore-based workers.

Government new clause 34 extends the maximum period of the protective award from 90 days to 180 days. We were looking for an uncapped award, to be frank, because P&O built into the pricing the amount it would be fined as a result of its unlawful behaviour, so that did not matter to P&O—it simply priced that in.

In addition, we were looking for injunctive relief, and I thank the Government for entering into discussions about that. Many employers can get injunctive relief on the tiniest error by a union in balloting procedures, but workers cannot. We are asking for a level playing field. We hoped that an amendment would be tabled to the Bill today, but it has not been. We hope the Government will enter into those discussions and go further.

[Andy McDonald]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend recalls the evidence of Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, to the Business and Trade Committee. He made it clear that he deliberately broke the law and had no regard for it. Was my right hon. Friend as horrified as I was to see that in this House, and as disappointed at the lack of response from the Conservative party?

[John McDonnell]

I think that across the House it took a long while to recover from the anger at the behaviour that was displayed in front of the Select Committee. The chief executive was acting with impunity because he had been able to price in those sorts of fines, and it was a cross-party view that we were angry about that behaviour. That is why the charter is so important to us, and why injunctive relief that is open to trade unions would provide an adequate starting point for getting some form of justice.

A range of other issues need to be addressed, including schedule 4, where the Government are introducing the ability to monitor the behaviour of companies. Harbourmasters monitor some of that behaviour as well, with declarations that companies are abiding by basic health and safety practices—some practices in the past have been frankly terrifying. We want health and safety to be about more than just basic legislation; it is also about rosters and how long people are working. We still have ferry contracts where people are working for 17 weeks without a break. We want to ensure that the regulations cover rosters, as well as holiday pay, sick pay, pensions and ratings training, so that we can start to get some form of accountability within the sector. That is not much to ask for, yet we have given shipping owners £3 billion of tonnage tax exemptions in return for the employment of British seafarers, and I do not think we got a single job as a result of that £3 billion. There is a need for proper regulation of the sector.

I tabled an amendment to ask the Government to stand back once a year and bring a report to the House on how implementation of the Bill is going, and to update us on the implications for maritime law and International Labour Organisation conventions, and the impact on the sector. A lot of debate on this issue has been about ferries, but we want to ensure that the provisions apply to all vessels, not just ferries. One point made by those on the Labour Front Bench when considering the Seafarers’ Wages Bill was that if a ship came into a harbour 52 times a year, the legislation would apply. Now—I do not know why—that has been extended to 120 times year, which means that thousands of workers will lose out because the measure will not apply to them. Will the Government have another conversation about that and see whether we can revert to the original position of the Labour party all those years ago when these scandals happened?

There is not much time but, briefly, I am interested in the extension of sectoral collective bargaining right across the economy. We are doing it with social care, but what I have seen from proposals in the Bill does not look like sectoral collective bargaining to me; it looks simply like an extension of pay review bodies. Indeed, the Bill states that any agreements within those organisations cannot legally be accepted as collective bargaining.

The Bill is not clear about how members of the negotiating body are appointed or by who. We were expecting that it would be 50% employers and 50% trade unions, and I tabled an amendment to try to secure that. We think that the negotiating body should elect its own chair, not that the chair should be appointed by the Secretary of State. We want such bodies to be independent and successful, because I see that as the first step in rolling out sectoral collective bargaining in many other sectors of our economy. That is desperately needed because of the lack of trade union rights and the low pay that exists.

The Bill is a good first step, but there is a long agenda to go through. I look forward not just to the Bill proceeding, but to the Minister bringing forward an Employment Rights (No. 2) Bill in the next 18 months.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 74, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh). I pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) who have campaigned on these issues for a long time. New clause 74 seeks to ban non-disclosure agreements that prevent workers from making a disclosure about harassment, including sexual harassment—we have talked about sexual harassment in the workplace for the last four or five hours.

NDAs were initially designed to protect trade secrets by restricting the sharing of certain information, but in recent times they have taken on an entirely different and quite sinister role. They have essentially become the default solution for organisations and individuals to settle cases of misconduct, discrimination and harassment, keeping the extent of such incidents unaccounted for. Incorporating clear provisions to ensure transparency in cases of harassment would strengthen protections for all workers.

Data from Can’t Buy My Silence has revealed some deeply worrying statistics about the misuse of NDAs. In a survey of more than 1,000 people who experienced harassment and discrimination in the workplace, 25% reported being forced to sign an NDA, while an additional 11% stated that they could not say due to legal reasons, implying that they had also signed an NDA. Four times as many women as men sign NDAs, and they are used disproportionately against women of colour.

In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had “reservations” about changing the law in this way, as there may be “unintended consequences”. I struggle to understand why the Government have committed to banning universities from using NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying but have not committed to extending those protections to other sectors. NDAs are clearly being used in a totally different way to what they were designed to achieve, and we must stop this before more victims are silenced. I heard the Minister say earlier that he is at least looking at what new clause 74 is trying to achieve.

Despite my concerns about the misuse of NDAs, the Bill as a whole has many very positive provisions. Importantly, it finally legislates to protect workers from third-party harassment. I brought that forward in my original Bill that became the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which recently became law. However, it was blocked by amendments made to the Bill in Committee in the House of Lords by the Conservative party, so that such liability and protection from sexual harassment by third parties in the workplace was not created. We have already discussed that several times this afternoon.

I am most pleased that the Government have committed to making workplaces safer through this protection, because that is what this is all about. Creating safer workplaces is good for everyone, including businesses, despite what the Conservative party says. A study by Culture Shift found that 66% of businesses believe that preventing sexual harassment is very important. I do not know what Conservative Members are talking about when they say that their inboxes are full; I have not seen a single email from a business writing to me to say that it is worried about protecting its own employees from third-party harassment. According to WorkNest, three quarters of employers are still concerned about protecting employees from harassment by third parties. Businesses are concerned that they cannot protect their workers from third-party harassment; they clearly want these protections to be included in the Bill.

Too many people still suffer from third-party harassment at work. Amendment 288, which tries to remove those important provisions, is plain wrong. Employers have a duty to ensure the safety of their employees from not just other employees, but third parties who may interact with them in the workplace. That responsibility should be part of their broader commitment to workplace safety. If the Conservative party is truly committed to a world without harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace, why is it still condoning offensive language and behaviour as “banter” and “free speech”, rather than taking a step to support businesses and protect workers from sexual harassment in the workplace, as proposed in the Bill?

I am grateful that the Government have ensured the completion of my Act as it was intended a year or two ago. Although I remain concerned about the misuse of NDAs, I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill. I will be proud to walk through the No Lobby when we come to vote on amendment 288, and I hope that all right-minded people will join me there.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on an excellent and eloquent speech, which covered all the issues. I also thank the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for contributing very tellingly.

My background in this subject is that, from 2002, I chaired what was known as the Grocery Market Action Group, which had among its members the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, ActionAid, Traidcraft, Friends of the Earth and others. It was amazing to have such a disparate group of organisations in the same room, actually working together and agreeing 100% about the injustices and dysfunctionality of the way in which the grocery supply chain was operating.

We presented a range of evidence to the Competition Commission. That ultimately provoked an investigation in 2008, which resulted in the commission proposing the establishment of a groceries code to drive fair trade through the supply chain. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was created to enforce the code and ensure that it was applied by those supermarkets. In those days, only five had a turnover in excess of £1 billion, which was the recommendation of the Competition Commission at that stage.

Having done that, and having worked for over a decade to get the legislation through, I obviously have some skin in the game, which I probably need to declare. I am not trying to claim the credit myself, because it was a cross-party effort.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

Why not? Go on!

[Andrew George]

Well, I suppose I should—no, I will not. One stands on the shoulders of giants, and Colin Breed did a tremendous amount of work from 1997 to 2001. He produced an excellent report called “Checking out the Supermarkets”, which laid a lot of the groundwork for the Grocery Market Action Group. Albert Owen, David Drew and other Labour Members were also very supportive and active throughout those years. There was not always cross-party agreement, or even agreement within my own party, that we should intervene in the market in the way that was proposed. We had to win that argument, and ultimately we did.

At the end of the day, the justification for why the Groceries Code Adjudicator, or any kind of market intervention of that nature, was needed, was that, fundamentally, we had a dysfunctional supply chain operating largely to the benefit of the supermarkets. Not all of our agricultural sector was benefiting from European subsidies or any other public subsidies in those days, but it had become dependent on subsidies because the market was so dysfunctional that public money was needed to prop up the whole system. If we have a functioning market, one can enable the agricultural sector to free itself from dependence on public subsidy. That was largely what was behind what we were trying to do in those days.

When the Groceries Code Adjudicator was established and the code was created, the intention then was only that it would create a framework in which future Governments would review its progress and then build on the framework by introducing or reducing regulations. Certainly the framework was to provide the skeleton on which further developments could happen; of course one cannot anticipate all circumstances.

I want to follow up on the points made by the hon. Member for Salford and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe. There are a number of improvements that I hope the Government will look at very closely. For example, the code should be applied throughout the supply chain, not just to the direct supplier to the supermarket. It was never the intention of the Grocery Market Action Group that the adjudicator should look only at the final transaction between the ultimate supplier to the supermarket and the supermarket itself, because the impact of that contract could be fed right down through the supply chain.

The second point concerned third-country suppliers. The reason why Traidcraft, the Fairtrade Foundation and so on were involved is because they were rightly hoping that third countries could be involved. Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe said, the adjudicator could launch its own investigation on the basis of market intelligence. Finally, it could work alongside the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, for example, to use its intelligence to take matters forward. Fundamentally, we have a framework that can be developed and improved. It certainly should not depend on seconded staff. We do not get commitment to the cause if we depend entirely on seconded staff, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe said. I hope the Minister will look carefully at this. Thank you very much, Mr Twigg, for allowing me to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) should not be so self-deprecating. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was brought about by an excellent piece of work and a good campaign. It was possibly the only thing of any worth that the Lib Dems did in government with the Conservatives.

I just want to make a couple of brief points because my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and others have covered the ground very well. I am a member of the bakers union group, too, and in 2013 we welcomed the introduction of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. We met a few times to talk about the individual issues that occurred then. If hon. Members can remember, we raised the issue of low-cost production, particularly of bread, which was a result of supermarket pressure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford raised the issue of private equity. If we thought it was bad enough when there were individual supermarkets of sizeable status, we are now in a completely different world. Private equity is sweeping them up, exercising enormous power. I feel that the Government need to get ahead of the game. It is like the residential care sector before private equity took over and leveraged those individual companies. I can remember a number of them collapsing, and I think we are in exactly the same position here. That is why the call for an inquiry, bringing in all concerned partners, is invaluable. It is important to think through the implications and what regulation we can develop. The bakers union is calling for a new regulatory authority, because that would give more status and resources, as my hon. Friend pointed out. We need to understand the significance of what is happening in the field at the moment.

I want to make a second, brief point. The Minister here today is also responsible for the Employment Rights Bill that is going through Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned low pay. The bakers union survey found that 80% of its members were struggling to get by on basics such as rent, heat and food. There is a scandal on sick pay in this sector. The survey found that 37% of workers have to rely on statutory sick pay alone when they go off sick. Staggeringly, 13% received no sick pay at all. As a result, I believe some are forced into working when they are sick, which is the last thing anyone wants in this sector. It is important that the issue of sick pay is addressed in the Employment Rights Bill, which I think most people will welcome. I know amendments on that are being tabled as we speak and, in this sector, it could have a direct impact on the wellbeing of workers.

Finally, if we are to move forward, from the bakers union perspective the establishment of a regulatory authority is critical. How it is made democratically accountable is also important. Along with the engagement of farmers and supermarkets, it is key that workers are involved and represented through the unions involved in this sector, so that we can plan a long-term strategy for food production that is not based on low pay or exploitation of farmers.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople, I should say that I will call the Minister no later than 20 past. I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Tim Farron.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree. I was not so certain about this, so I looked at what Lord Lisvane, the one-time chief Clerk in the House, said about it. He produced a note on it, which I quote:

“The issue, as I recall, was whether a Motion to approve the PRC’s accession could be amended. Commons S.O. No 24B says that when a Motion in neutral terms (in the judgement of the Chair) is tabled, no amendments to it may be tabled. I think this would probably rule out seeking to amend a simple ‘take note’ or ‘has considered’ Motion.”

I want to emphasise that it is not true that a motion to take note can be amended—that was used in the other place as a defence. The CRaG process does not provide for a vote; it does not even guarantee a debate. That is why the new clause is needed.

Under UK trade policy, it is not unusual for bilateral trade agreements to be subject to parliamentary approval—free trade agreements are routinely subject to it. In response to criticism of the CRaG process in 2021, the Grimstone rule was established, whereby the Government agreed in principle to allow time to debate prospective FTAs where the International Agreements Committee has published a report. I happen to believe that there are Ministers who are keen and happy to have debates—I mention no names, but that is the case. However, I know that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office absolutely opposes them, because it hates to have any serious debates about its prerogative.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is keen on debates. On that basis, I invite him to sign my prayer against this treaty, to urge the Government to give us a debate on the treaty as a whole.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to tempt me beyond my new clause. I always happy to look at this issue, and I believe in debate. It is vital, otherwise Governments are never held to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

I stand to speak to new clause 12, which stands in my name, and also to new clauses 11 and 13. I would like to begin by stating once again that the Liberal Democrats want to see an ambitious trade policy aimed at creating opportunities for British firms around the world and new jobs here in our country. The Bill and our accession to the CPTPP are a step in that direction. The point has been well made, in this House and in the other place, that the projections in the Government’s own impact assessment are for GDP growth of just 0.06% by 2040, so although the UK’s accession to the trading bloc can and should be welcomed, the cause for celebration is limited.

I would like to speak to three new clauses that aim to address some key issues with the Bill and the UK’s accession. New clause 12 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the CPTPP’s performers’ rights provisions. We know the worries of our creative industries surrounding the Bill. The lack of reciprocal agreements for UK artists in CPTPP countries leaves our creatives exposed. The UK is rightly proud of our world-leading creative industries and we should also be proud of a world-leading intellectual property regime. We must be sure that this Bill and this trade deal do nothing to jeopardise that. There is a need for clarity and certainty in this area, and that is why I tabled new clause 12, which I hope Members will support.

New clause 13 would require the Government to conduct a review examining how the implementation of the treaty affects the costs faced by exporting and importing businesses in the UK. That report would have to consider the existing costs that those businesses were already facing as a result of trade regulations. We know that the stated ambition of the Government is that the deal will minimise red tape and trade regulations when trading with other CPTPP countries, which is a welcome goal. However, the British Chambers of Commerce has found that almost two fifths of businesses list regulations and red tape as a significant barrier to exporting. We need to be assured that our businesses will be supported to trade and flourish. With that in mind, it will be worth while, after our accession, to take the time to assess how the deal and the wider trade regulation landscape are affecting British businesses. That is the purpose of new clause 13.

It is clear that the CPTPP will likely grow over time as new countries join and accede to the deal, which will bring new opportunities but may also pose risks. The potential accession of China is one example, and the concerns regarding that possibility have been well discussed by colleagues in this Chamber and the other place. New clause 11 would require the Government to provide an impact assessment on the accession of countries that have made, and will make, a formal request to join the CPTPP. This will allow us to have a clear and informed vision of what the accession of each new country would mean for the UK. I believe this would be a reasonable and common-sense measure.

I finish by echoing what has already been said about parliamentary scrutiny. It is welcome that we are having this debate today but, in reality, we are debating a very limited and narrow Bill. We need proper parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals, and I ask the Government to ensure that it happens in future.

[John McDonnell]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan) on his excellent speech. He mentioned that he has been elected at the tail-end of a Government and that an election is coming soon. I reassure him that the diligence he has already demonstrated in this House and his constituency should secure his re-election. It is wonderful to hear a Member speaking for a constituency with its accent.

I will address amendment 2 and new clause 8, although I support virtually every amendment that has been tabled, which shows the weakness of the process by which we have examined this treaty. I have been involved in discussions with the Secretary of State and the Minister over a number of months on ISDS, and I am concerned about the contradiction between their refusal to secure a side letter with regard to this treaty and what happened with regard to Australia and New Zealand. The negotiating brief for the Canadian free trade agreement also had a specific remit to prevent an ISDS process. I have never got to the bottom of that contradiction.

Amendment 2 follows our lengthy debate about the scrutiny of treaties. I have not given notice to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) that I will be referring to him in the Chamber, although I am not sure that we have to give notice ahead of praising, rather than criticising, another Member. I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which he chairs, and he has become the 21st-century Walter Bagehot, with a solid mixture of Trollope. He steered our discussions on the formal process for examining treaties with immense skill, drawing on a range of evidence that led to consensus—there is almost consensus in the Chamber at the moment—and this is what our report says:

“CRAG has been an insufficient legislative tool to facilitate meaningful Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties… the current legislation provides only a passive role for Parliament and as such there is no opportunity for Parliament to express its explicit approval or disapproval of a treaty.”

That is a common theme of all the debates. We have to do better than this.

Having read the report, the worry is that the Government have not responded positively by trying to get some order, particularly on the early negotiating processes and the debates that should take place. The Committee’s general view on this treaty, like the others, is that Parliament has been largely bypassed. We were offered no say on the Government’s negotiating objectives at the earliest stage, which is important, and no oversight of the negotiations as they progressed. Now we are refused a vote on the final terms of accession. This is not acceptable as a democratic process. The formal CRaG period, under which we can nominally have a say on the agreement, concludes this Friday, after a 21-day period. We are offered no vote or even a debate on the substantive terms of the CPTPP during this period, and accession is likely to receive our consent without any of us being given a single vote.

As I mentioned to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I have tabled a prayer to try to secure a time extension to enable the Government to bring forward time for a debate. My view is exactly the same as his: we are debating a narrow, technical, implementing Bill and that is no substitute for a confirmatory debate and vote on the accession itself. I agree with the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, who has raised this issue with the Government in correspondence over the past two weeks. It is preposterous for the Government then to say with a straight face that there is not parliamentary time to have such a debate, given our current sitting arrangements. Those who have been here for as long as me, or perhaps even longer, will know that there has not been a problem on parliamentary time in the past, as we have simply found the time and sat and gone through the business when it is so important.

My amendment 2 seeks to address that wrong by formalising a requirement for the Government to ask for Parliament’s consent for the UK’s accession to the CPTPP. That is a basic democratic point of principle. If the Government do not accept that, I come back to the urgings of Members from across the House and say that I hope the Government will take seriously the recommendations of the PACAC report for reform of the process overall. We are dealing with an undemocratic structure. The PACAC report’s incredibly practical proposals are for a sifting process, a sifting Committee, the identification of treaties that require longer consideration and giving the House itself a proper process of democratic scrutiny and democratic decision.

I shall deal briefly with new clause 8, which stands in my name and deals with the labour chapter of the CPTPP. I have raised this issue before, and the point has been made by a number of colleagues, the TUC, in particular, and various other campaigning organisations throughout this ratification process. The labour provisions of the CPTPP are outdated and inadequate. This treaty will include a number of countries, some of which have been mentioned, with the prospect of others joining, where abuses of labour rights are widespread. Putting in place effective labour provisions is therefore vital in any treaty we undertake.

That view has been expressed across the House for a number of years now, but let me give some examples. In Brunei and Vietnam, independent trade unions are banned—they are not allowed legally to operate. In Malaysia, which has been mentioned in our previous debates, forced labour has been documented extensively. That issue has been raised in this House time and again.

In that context, it is crucial that the CPTPP’s labour provisions are readily enforceable and are linked to the removal of trade preferences, to ensure that membership does not lead to a race to the bottom on labour standards, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman said. I agree with him on the fear about China, because union colleagues of mine from Hong Kong, whom I have worked with for decades, are in prison at the moment purely and simply because they are trade unionists and have stood up for democratic rights.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The point I was trying to make is that there is also an economic issue here. If China practises slave or forced labour, as it does on a wide scale, it undercuts all the reasonable labour. One good example is that the UK is desperately trying to get more solar arrays, but the polysilicon that is critical to those is mined in Xinjiang under slave labour conditions. No wonder everybody else is undercut, but we still pay for this.

[John McDonnell]

It is a point of economic principle that such things will occur if we do not have proper rights or regulations installed, or the appropriate sanctions when anything takes place. At the moment, those are not contained in the treaty. One member state can challenge another for failing to uphold labour rights, but, as we have seen time and again across various treaties, it is notoriously difficult to prove that such failure has affected trade. To challenge those labour practices, we have to demonstrate the effect on trade, but, under current provisions, that is almost impossible to do.

The International Trade Union Confederation has rightly pointed to the ability of states to buy their way out of issues via dispute settlement, as the amount of compensation has been calculated time and again as a fraction of the violation’s impact on trade. So the sanctions do not work, and they will not work under this treaty.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I will raise three issues: the scrutiny process, ISDS and my ongoing concerns about the impact of the measures.

I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I am the sole Committee member present in the Chamber because the others are on a delegation to Berlin at the moment—I am sure that they are working hard at this time of night, and not having a dinner. As has been mentioned, we published our report today; it is a comprehensive report, agreed by all parties. We have been looking at the overall parliamentary scrutiny process for treaties and free trade agreements and, to be frank, we have unanimously found that the current process is unfit for purpose.

At the moment, Parliament—I do not disparage the Government for this; it has happened consistently in the past—is treated as an afterthought in trade policy. We have not been able to find any meaningful mechanism by which Parliament can influence the negotiating objectives at the beginning of the overall process or oversee negotiations as they proceed, and we are never guaranteed a vote on the final agreement at the end of the process—a point that has been made on a number of occasions by Members across the House.

That contrasts with what happens in other legislatures, particularly the US Congress, where legislators play an incredibly proactive role. I do not think the Government should see the parliamentary process as an imposition with regard to future treaties, but as a method of improving the trade negotiations by allowing Members of Parliament to have an early and ongoing voice in those discussions. It is interesting that other Members—including the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—made exactly the same point during a debate in this House on the Australia free trade agreement, way back in November 2022. The right hon. Gentleman set out how during talks with Japan, the Japanese negotiators used parliamentary motions that their Government could not breach to protect their country’s interests.

People will see from the report that we have put forward a fairly comprehensive process by which the House can efficiently and effectively engage itself in such negotiations, with a sifting committee and a scrutiny committee. The House would always have the right to a vote at the end of the day, but more importantly, it would have an influence at the beginning of the negotiations when the overall objectives are set. The proposed process is part of an overall attempt to create greater transparency and, indeed, greater interest within the House in trade negotiations. I hope that the Government will take the Select Committee report away and come back with a positive response, because it contains some very constructive recommendations.

I now turn to the much discussed investor-state dispute settlement procedure. In debates in recent years, Members from across the House have expressed concern about the investor-state dispute mechanism, and those concerns have moved into the mainstream—not just in this country, but in other countries that are moving away from that system. As we have heard, Australia and New Zealand have committed to exclude the ISDS procedure from future trade agreements on the basis that in many instances, that procedure is not in the public interest. I cite the energy charter treaty. That has been the biggest vehicle for ISDS claims, and it is collapsing, with France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and others withdrawing. President Biden has now come out and criticised the ISDS procedures, and has basically excluded them from any future US trade agreements.

As the Minister knows, I have raised this matter in the House a number of times. I am sometimes perplexed: we are told that the Government are committed to the ISDS process, but on the other hand, they have acceded to both Australia and New Zealand exempting themselves from that process with regard to the UK. The last time I raised this issue, the Minister responded by saying—exactly as the Chair of the Business and Trade Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), noted—that the UK has never been successfully challenged under ISDS. That is true, but there is an element of hubris in that position.

[Liam Byrne]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and he is absolutely right to flag this issue. The UK Government have not hitherto been successfully challenged under ISDS, but for the first time, countries with very significant foreign direct investment into the UK are involved in this treaty. The figure for Canada alone is $56 billion. When it came to Japan—the other big investor—ISDS was excluded from the UK-Japan bilateral investment treaty. We need an awful lot more reassurance from the Government on this point, given the scale of investment from countries such as Canada in our country in general, but in sectors such as the water industry in particular.

[John McDonnell]

I do not know how excellent my speech is—I will just ramble on as usual, I think.

The argument that was put to me by the Minister responding today, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), was that if we cannot trust Canada in these deals, who can we trust? That is precisely the point, though: Canada will now have a parallel system, and Canadian firms will be able to take legal action in their own country. As a result of that statement by the Minister, I went away and had a look at the figures for Canadian firms under this process, and those firms stand out as being particularly litigious. They have brought over 65 ISDS cases in recent years. I therefore think that there is a chilling effect, exactly as the Chair of the Select Committee said, which at the end of the day can have implications for the UK’s right to regulate. If a number of cases are waged against the UK, that may undermine our ability to act more freely when it comes to regulation of the water sector, and also policy development, particularly on issues around water and future public ownership.

Again, I have previously raised this matter with the Secretary of State. What I cannot completely understand is that at the same time that the UK Government are defending the ISDS process with regard to the CPTPP, in the negotiating process for the bilateral free trade agreement they set out a specific objective to exclude the provisions of the ISDS system. That is a contradiction, and the Government’s thinking on that matter has not yet been explained to me. As the Minister will also know, there is a remarkably broad range of concern about the ISDS: in October 2023, a letter was submitted to the Government—supported by 30 non-governmental organisations and trade unions and over 50 academics and legal professionals from both the UK and Canada—calling for the immediate negotiation of a side letter between the UK and Canada to disapply the ISDS provisions between the two countries. That is exactly what happened with regard to New Zealand and Australia, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government have not gone down that path for this particular negotiation.

I also want to express some concerns that have been raised about environmental issues and about labour standards. The CPTPP includes a number of countries where abuses of labour rights are widespread. To give a few examples, independent trade unions are banned in Brunei and Vietnam, while forced labour has been widely documented in Malaysia in various pieces of research, and a number of CPTPP member states have not ratified some of the core International Labour Organisation conventions.

The protections for labour rights within the CPTPP are particularly weak: a member state can only challenge another member state over a failure to uphold labour rights if it can be demonstrated that such a failure affected trade, which is notoriously difficult to prove in such cases. The ineffectual nature of that chapter is demonstrated by the fact that since the agreement’s conclusion in 2018, no Government have challenged another for abusing rights. The TUC has described the risk of CPTPP making it

“easier for unethical companies and investors to do business with countries where it’s easier to exploit workers”—

a risk that it considers to be significant. I do not think we have addressed that issue sufficiently.

There are also concerns regarding standards in partner countries. For example, as has already been said, pesticide standards could be undermined. Some 119 pesticides that are banned in the UK are allowed for use in one or more CPTPP member states. Although accession to the CPTPP does not necessitate any lowering of UK standards in this regard, when the peers debated this issue, there were really practical questions about the sufficiency of the UK’s border testing regime in keeping banned substances out. Again, it is an issue that needs further consideration in more detail as we go through the whole process.

The issue has been raised—and I know that the Chair of the Select Committee said that this may well have been exaggerated or overestimated in some of the debates—that the UK has acceded to Malaysia’s demand to lower tariffs on palm oil to zero. I have to say that the evidence I have seen and the representations I have received from the Trade Justice Movement and others is that this is highly likely to increase palm oil exports and, with that, the risk of deforestation, which will serve to undermine indigenous and local community land rights and threaten natural habitats for species such as orangutans. We have seen the various research and the range of evidence mounting on this particular issue. Again, it was debated in the Lords in the context of the potential protections afforded by the UK forest risk commodities legislation, under section 17 of the Environment Act 2021, but it is unclear when these regulations will actually come into effect, and therefore many believe that the protections are not in place at this stage.

There is also a view that accession to the CPTPP will bring risks of the erosion of preferences, under which current preferential trade agreements afforded to exporters in one country will bring negative development impacts on others. One example cited by the Trade Justice Movement is that Afruibana, the association representing banana exporters across Africa, has set out concerns regarding the potential impacts of tariff liberalisation in South and central America for those they represent.

Finally, one of the reports sent to me was a health impact assessment produced by Public Health Wales. It identified a range of diverse potential impacts, including the worsening of global air pollution due to transport distances for goods, the loss of employment for some population groups and, of course, the risk of ISDS cases being brought against regulations that seek to support public health outcomes. It is an important impact assessment that needs further scrutiny and examination. It leaves me with the impression overall that there has been a lack of impact assessments, so I look forward to the Select Committee report, which will go into further depths on this.

I come to the conclusion that, with all the risks involved and with such doubt surrounding the CPTPP, it will achieve what we could not even describe as a marginal economic gain over the length of time it will be in place, and I fear to tread on treaties and agreements of this sort. I just think that, although there is not going to be a vote tonight, I might be tempted at a later date to vote against the Bill—so I had better let the Labour Whips know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Of course, successive Secretaries of State have pursued that relationship, including the current Secretary of State, who is personally obviously very committed. I think that I have made two visits to Malaysia in my time as Trade Minister, and we are really excited about having a better trade relationship with Malaysia.

It seemed a logical move to join the CPTPP, as it included many of our global free trading cohort, including Japan, Australia and New Zealand, but it did not have the controversial aspects of free trade zones in Europe, such as free movement, financial contributions and dynamic alignment of rules. As the Secretary of State said, the agreement will grow. Joining the CPTPP will be great news for the UK as an independent trading nation, and for UK goods and services exporters. They include beverage producers in Scotland—I did not hear the SNP extolling that virtue—machinery manufacturers in Wales, and car manufacturers in Northern Ireland and the west midlands.

According to 2022 data, the UK is the world’s second largest services exporter—a point also raised by my hon. Friends on the Government Benches. Joining the CPTPP will help minimise unnecessary data flow barriers, empower UK services exporters and encourage inward financial investment—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). Overall, it will provide us with a new presence in the wider Indo-Pacific region—a region of paramount geopolitical and economic importance, and one that is expected to account for 54% of global economic growth by 2050.

I warmly welcome the constructive comments made and the support from sectors across the country. In her opening speech, the Secretary of State quoted the president of the National Farmers Union and the director-general of the Institute of Export and International Trade. I would like to add just one more quote, from the Federation of Small Businesses. We had an intervention earlier about SMEs; the FSB said that it is

“very pleased to see the UK officially join”.

In FSB research, 45% of small exporters said that access to this market will be important for future growth.

Today we have heard a number of important points raised, and I will try to answer as many as possible in the time available. I remind the House of the specific purpose of the Bill: to enable the implementation of aspects of the CPTPP when the UK accedes, specifically relating to chapters on intellectual property, Government procurement and technical barriers to trade.

First of all, we heard from the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who gave us his familiar explication of how we are not doing enough trade deals, even though he has voted against every single one of the deals that we have done. We heard about his attitude to Canada, and his faux outrage about the idea that there might be a weakening in the existing trade deal with Canada. We heard that from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). They also said that the Government are letting down people by not having an effective continuation of the Canada trade deal. We can differ on that, but the difference in the case of the hon. Member for Harrow West is that he voted against the Canada trade deal in the first place. He is now taking time to complain about the weakening of an agreement that he did not support from the very off.

On China, the hon. Member for Harrow West has been reminded about the Auckland principles, and that all countries acceding to the CPTPP must accede to the high standards of the agreement, have a history of conforming with trade agreements and command the consensus of the parties. The investor-state dispute settlement, which was also raised by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is in the agreement, but I remind the House that the UK has never lost a case. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington called it hubristic to mention that, but it is a fact, and the agreement never prevents the right to regulate. On performers’ rights, raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), the CPTPP is an existing agreement, and changes will have to be made.

[John McDonnell]

I have made this point on previous occasions, but I just want to understand the logic of the Government’s position of allowing the ISDS in this particular deal, but trying to avoid it in the free trade agreement with Canada.

[Greg Hands]

These are all matters for negotiation. What happens in one negotiation will not always be the same as what happens in another; it is impossible to compare them. I can say that we already have ISDS provisions with seven of the 11 CPTPP members.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I will not, because I am trying to respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier points. On performers’ rights, raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, we expect the practical impact to be small. The Intellectual Property Office is carrying out a consultation on how the provisions will be implemented.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made a characteristically upbeat and excellent speech, pointing out that the region has £12 trillion in GDP, how the UK will be—and is—at the forefront of global trade, and how the deal will make no alteration to our standards.

From the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), we heard a familiar tale of woe. He failed to stick up for Scotland and to point out all the trade benefits for Scotland. He said that he has been against every single UK trade deal, and that is correct, but he failed to mention that he has also been against every single EU trade deal that has ever been negotiated. He wishes to rejoin the EU and be subject to those very trade deals that he spent years campaigning against. He was against the Canada deal, the South Africa deal, the Japan deal, the Singapore deal and the Korea deal.

The hon. Member failed to mention the particular benefits to Scotland. He was wrong when he said that the GDP increase is £2 billion—it is £2 billion per annum. Then, he went down an extraordinary road of talking about eggs. Ninety per cent. of our egg consumption comes from domestic production. All eggs are subject to sanitary and phytosanitary checks, and from Wednesday, EU eggs will be, too, under the border target operating model. We have imported hardly any eggs at all from CPTPP countries since 2015. I think he mentioned eggs from Mexico, but there has been not a single import of an egg from Mexico since 2005. This is the most extraordinary scaremongering. The Trade and Agriculture Commission said:

“we found it was unlikely that eggs from CPTPP parties…would be imported into the UK”.

The hon. Member is sacrificing the interests of those selling Scotch whisky and other high-quality Scottish produce by starting scare stories about the importation of eggs, which are not coming to this country. He mentioned workers’ rights; I have already said that there is a comprehensive labour chapter.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, made a constructive speech. He said that the deal was good for farmers, good for whisky and had a good digital chapter. He is right that we are doing more trade deals— we are going further with Switzerland, Turkey, South Korea and others. He is right on the scale of the CPTPP and growth. On pesticides, there is no change to our right to regulate or to our import standards. We set the maximum limits on pesticides—there is no change to that.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said that we already have deals with nine of the 11 members. Well, it depends on what is in the deal. As I pointed out in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), the existing deal with Mexico is very old—it goes back more than 20 years. The CPTPP is a very modern deal. We can get a lot more done with a very modern deal than with a deal that is many decades old. She complained about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny. There have been two oral statements, 16 written ministerial statements, and Ministers and officials have appeared before five Select Committees to give evidence on the CPTPP. That is a lot of parliamentary scrutiny over the years. On palm oil, the TAC said that it is unlikely that the CPTPP will lead to an increase in palm oil being grown on deforested land. We have had impact assessments galore, but I am happy to look at the public health assessment mentioned by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

Finally, we heard a speech from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), which was alarmist in its impact on farmers. The NFU supports the agreement. She described the “toxic tendrils” of the deal, and even blamed “insipid sandwiches” on this Tory Government. There are many things that I am not quite sure can be blamed on any Government, and the quality of sandwiches is going too far. She started verging into what sounded a little like conspiracy theories.

The Bill is the next step in the creation of the outward-looking and internationalist UK that we envisage for our country’s future. Through the UK’s accession to the CPTPP, the Government will place the UK at the centre of a modern, progressive and values-based partnership that spans the Americas and Asia, and which other economies are queueing up to join. It is the gateway to new business opportunities and greater consumer choice benefits that will be felt in every corner of the UK. While the legislation may be narrow, it is crucial to the UK’s ability to accede to the CPTPP. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 22 February 2024.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Robert Largan.)

Question agreed to.

Arms Export Licences: Israel

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Lots of people want to speak, so I will be as brief as possible. I want to ask a number of questions, but I will just say as a preface that when someone has been in this House long enough and sat through the discussions about the various wars taking place, they get an understanding of the nature of war and of war crimes legislation. Whatever Hamas did, whatever people think, it was a war crime, and we have condemned that absolutely, but we created legislation globally after the second world war to determine how states could legally react to war crimes like that. Article 8 of the Rome statute, which set up the International Criminal Court, specifically designated war crimes: first, the use of weapons that were indiscriminate in their impact—that is, that affected civilians—and, secondly, the denial of the basic resources to survive, for civilian populations in particular. That is food, water and heat. The third element of war crimes under article 8 was the forced displacement of people from their homelands. I am afraid that whatever people think about what is happening in Gaza at the moment, what we are seeing are war crimes, according to the Rome statute; that is the case by any definition, but certainly on those three points. That is how we guide our reaction to activities by any state, whether it is Israel, Saudi or whoever, and, in guiding our behaviour, we have to recognise that if we in any way aid or provide support to a state acting in that way, we become complicit in those war crimes. That is the reality of where we are at the moment. I feel for the reputation of our country in the future because of the current behaviour of our Government.

A letter was written from a number of key organisations, and I want to raise the questions in it. It was written by Asad Rehman, chief executive of War on Want; Katie Fallon, director of advocacy at the Campaign Against Arms Trade; Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive of Amnesty International UK; and Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch. I want to raise some of the questions that they have asked. Has the Minister seen the letter? First, it calls for an immediate suspension of the extant licences and new export licences for Israel given the clear risk, in their view, that the component parts that are being transferred from the UK

“might be used to facilitate or commit…violations of international law”.

That includes actions that they believe are tantamount to war crimes. The question from those organisations is this: will the Government now suspend those licences?

Secondly, do the Government know whether British weapons or military equipment are being used in Gaza or not? We have heard from one Back Bencher that they are. The letter notes that in the past the UK admitted that it had supplied equipment and that that had been used by the Israel Defence Forces during hostilities in Gaza in 2009. Lord Cameron, as he now is, then introduced a procedure to suspend the operation, and there was a complete review of what was happening with the weapons that we had supplied. I think the minimum that we should be asking for now is for the Government to undertake a Lord Cameron-type review to see exactly how what we have supplied is being used and whether it is being used in Gaza, because if it is, I am afraid we become complicit in the war crime.

Another question that the organisations have asked is just what monitoring is taking place by the Government—what mechanism is in place that effectively to monitor what is going on? The further question that is asked is this: on what basis do the Government consider that there is no clear risk that arms licensed to Israel will be used in prohibited conduct as identified, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) said, in the strategic export licensing criteria. This goes back to the fact that the Government have warned in the past that if any of these weapons are used in this way, they will suspend the licence overall. Again, have the Government even taken that into consideration?

One question that we have asked consistently as the provision of £474 million of exports to Israel have gone on is whether the Government applied the restrictions that we had called for to prevent their use in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or against Palestinians. At least there are instances in which we could accept that we have been providing sufficient support to Israel to defend itself from external attack, but to allow these weapons to be used in the occupied territories means that they will be used against Palestinians or, indeed, some of the Palestinians who are Israeli citizens as well.

My final question is to ask the Government whether there have been any shipments of spare parts from the UK to Israel of UK-supplied components for Israeli F-16 and/or F-35 aircraft. As has been said, those are the aircraft that have been used in the indiscriminate bombing of Palestinians in Gaza and have caused such civilian loss of life.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does my right hon. Friend think an additional question might be what is carried in the RAF planes that are leaving RAF Akrotiri and apparently flying directly to Israel?

[John McDonnell]

That is why I am asking the question: the key components of those planes could be being used in the bombing of Gaza and the huge loss of life.

I reiterate what others have said: I find it difficult to participate in these debates without becoming extremely angry or emotional on all sides—both because I want the release of the hostages and because 7,000 children have now died. That cannot be right, and I believe it is a war crime. Anything that we are doing to give aid or comfort in this direction will ensure that we will be condemned in the future.

Finally, a number of us met Yachad today. We met with heroes and heroines from Palestine, Palestinians and Jewish Israelis. They are trying to campaign for peace. As part of their heroic campaign, one of their clear demands is for a ceasefire, so that we can release the hostages and at least plan for the future in peace.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I must tell hon. Members that the wind-ups will start at 3.30 pm. That means that the demand exceeds the supply, and I will impose a three-minute time limit. I call Apsana Begum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

No; I will respond to the points already raised.

DBT then decides whether to amend, suspend or revoke any relevant licence, or to refuse new applications for licences. The private Member’s Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Coventry South, if I have understood it correctly, seeks to do exactly that, but it can already happen. I would also say in response to the point raised by the hon. Lady that the Foreign Secretary announced the doubling of aid from £30 million to £60 million, which is a tripling overall. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) made a strong defence of Israel’s right to self-defence and our wider co-operation with Israel. He and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked me to restate our commitment to Israel, which I do.

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) had some praise for Lord Cameron. We have all performed some gymnastics over the years, but it was good to hear that praise from him. I have not personally seen the letter that he referred to, but our officials in the ECJU and the relevant Ministers engage with those groups all the time. In answer to the suggestion made by him and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), we continue to monitor the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories very closely, and will take any action that we consider appropriate.

[John McDonnell]

This is a simple request. There are specific questions in that letter from War on Want and the other agencies. Could the Minister write to us on the detail of the Government’s responses?

[Greg Hands]

I am happy to find that letter and see whether there has been a response. As a matter of course, we at DBT respond to letters from non-governmental organisations. I will find out whether a response has already been sent. [Interruption.] If it is appropriate; I am not sure whether it was private correspondence. I might have to find the original letter, but I will make sure that it is responded to.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) rightly highlighted the suffering of the civilian populations in Gaza, which is of course under Hamas control. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) raised a point about re-establishing the Committees; I think I have already answered that. He claimed that there were some tough Liberal Democrat policies in this space, but when the Liberal Democrats ran this Department for five years in the coalition, I do not recall those tough policies actually being implemented.