LGBT History Month

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I begin by congratulating my co-chair of the APPG on global LGBT rights, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), on her excellent opening speech. It is always a pleasure to work with her on the APPG, and I look forward to all the work we will continue to do together in this space. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this debate, particularly during LGBT History Month. I know time is precious, particularly with the recess in February, so I am grateful for the Committee’s attention.

I also welcome the Minister; I am happy that it is this Minister who is responding to the debate, and I particularly want to pay tribute to him; I know he is sick of hearing it, but his bravery in wearing the “One Love” armband in Qatar sent a strong signal. I commend him and am grateful to him for that; it is important that we remember that act of bravery.

We are now 50 years on from the Stonewall riots in the United States, the first ever pride rally in London and the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in the UK. We stand here in not only the mother of all Parliaments, but what was, until recently, labelled the gayest Parliament in the world. I think that is a term of endearment and very much a good thing; while I must heap praise on and congratulate our Commonwealth partner New Zealand on recently nicking that title from us, I am sure that we will get it back before too long.

We are here to talk about LGBT History Month, and of course LGBT history stretches much further back than just 50 years—believe it or not, we have been here much longer. For as long as there has been love between humans, there has been LGBT history. In fact, throughout history LGBT love has not just been limited to humans. Historians consider that the first chat-up line ever recorded took place between two ancient Egyptian gods. It is said that the deities Set and Horus argued for nearly a century about who should be the rightful ruler on Osiris’s throne. Considering a different approach, Set turned to Horus and said, and I quote:

“How lovely are your buttocks! And how muscular your thighs…”

One thing led to another and, as they say, the rest is history—I promise that was not from the Grindr profile of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant).

In ancient Mesopotamia, the priests and priestesses of the goddess Ishtar were bisexual and transgender. One of the aspects of the goddess that was considered most awe-inspiring was her ability to turn men into women and women into men. Her father-god Enki is said to have created a third gender, neither male nor female; what today we would refer to as a non-binary gender was first recognised more than 3,000 years ago and a third gender was created by divine will.

We have come a long way since dodgy chat-up lines from the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians—[Interruption.] The point bears repeating that we can find evidence of LGBT people and LGBT history across human history for thousands and thousands of years. Same-sex relationships and gender fluidity were considered very common in many parts of the world, and distinctions concerning sexual and gender identity and prohibitions on such relationships and identities only appeared in recent centuries.

The first recorded criminalisation of homosexuality in England appeared in the 13th century, when sodomy and sorcery were considered punishable by being buried alive. Henry VIII’s Buggery Act 1533 reinforced that, and he exported it across the world. For hundreds of years, that led to the promotion of long-lasting discrimination against LGBT people, which in many places can be seen today.

I do not often praise Napoleon, but the French were way ahead of us: in the early 19th century, the Napoleonic code effectively decriminalised homosexuality for many countries. Despite the absence—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda has got to stop giving a running commentary on this speech.

[Elliot Colburn]

I am always happy to be commentated on by the hon. Member—but I digress.

Despite the absence of laws criminalising same-sex relations, many countries still impose restrictions on LGBT people in other ways. The legal position on homosexuality softened in the 19th century with the more progressive and modern move—some might say—from “punishable by death” to just life imprisonment. The lack of sufficient evidence to convict all those suspected of having engaged in homosexual activity led to the introduction of the “blackmailer’s charter”, which criminalised gross indecency between men. That was the legislation under which many people, including Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing, were convicted, and it also affected transgender people.

The prohibition against cross-dressing started to take off during the 19th century, and to this day at least 15 jurisdictions across Africa, Asia and the middle east still impose criminal sanctions against people whose gender expression does not align with their sex assigned at birth. In the early 20th century, Australia introduced legislation specifically to criminalise sexual acts between men, which directly influenced legislation in many other countries including Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda.

“Gross indecency”, as defined in law, was limited to men until the 1920s, when people discovered that lesbians existed. English lawmakers identified an anomaly in the law, and attempted to criminalise same-sex relationships between women. Fortunately those attempts failed, but the damage had already been done internationally, and many former British colonies went ahead and adopted the criminalisation of lesbianism. Today—this was a point made very ably by my friend the hon. Member for Wallasey—at least 43 countries continue to criminalise sexual activity between women. Some do so explicitly by criminalising intimacy, while others do so through other gender-neutral provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

Absolutely. As I have said throughout my speech, I do not think prejudice is defined by one part of this. We are learning collectively, and I am happy for people to make mistakes, get language wrong and learn, but I want people to be on the right side of history on this. We know that people in this House and the other place have said horrific things about gay people in the past, but they have been on that journey, and I welcome that allyship. I married a straight man—a heterosexual man—and I welcome that allyship, but we need to recognise where we are at the moment and the dangers we are facing as a broader community.

We need to take pride in ourselves. We need to be at those Pride marches. We need to be the ones who are educating. We need to be the pioneers. We need to be the ones who are saying, “Love is love. Hate is hate”, and calling that out and spotting that difference. Through the determination of our continued struggle, we continue to tackle stereotypes that are just as harmful for heterosexual men as they are for gay men. A lot of people like to talk about toxic masculinity, but there are lots of different stereotypes that are harmful.

Everyone is an individual. Everyone’s individual love and individual identity is valid, wonderful and beautiful to me, and is why humanity is so exciting. It is so great to represent communities with all of that in. It is the fantasticness of being human. We need to stop dehumanising people and recognise that humanity is fantastic, and that has to include every part of the LGBTQ+ community.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Sport in Schools and Communities

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the next speaker, this debate needs to finish at 7 o’clock and I need to get the wind-ups in as well, so my advice is to speak for a maximum of six minutes. I would rather not set a time limit, so colleagues should be conscious of each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, if by chance you had been at the Cricket Asylum at Sowerby Bridge at 2 pm on Sunday, you would have witnessed an epic quarter-final between the Northern Star Sixers and King Cross under-11s. I will not go into the result, but it benefited one of my children. What was heart-warming was the conversation that I had with the coaches of King Cross. King Cross is a cricket team based in the centre of Halifax. The HX1 postcode of Halifax had three teams going back over the 100 years. For various reasons, those three teams have disappeared. The centre of Halifax has a diverse population of people of different backgrounds and heritages, which is something to be celebrated, and a large south Asian population have made it their home. In 2018, Calderdale College began to run cricket lessons to see whether anybody there would be interested. Some young kids from the HX1 area, who had never played cricket before and never been offered the opportunity to get cricket coaching, went along.

Those cricket lessons continued at Calderdale College and enthused those young people, many from a disadvantaged background, with the idea that, “Yes, this is something we love.” Over time, the cricket club developed and in 2022 there was a public advertisement saying, “Please come to King Cross rugby club in the centre of Halifax, because we’re thinking about starting a cricket team.” Some 90 kids turned up from the HX1 postcode, from King Cross, and King Cross cricket club was born. That same cricket club plays in the indoor cricket league that my son plays in. It has five teams and young people who are a credit to their parents and to what the club is doing. It has devoted people from within the community, parents and families, there supporting those teams.

Those young kids have a purpose, they love their cricket and they are achieving something. Obviously, the starting point was Calderdale College, but that hub has thrived because of community. The three clubs that disappeared have been replaced by a new club that has taken over a facility, has not asked the state to be the answer to every prayer or asked for a huge handout, but has done it for itself. Cricket is now back and thriving in the centre of Halifax and those are the lessons we must learn.

I will confine my remarks in the time I have to community, rather than schools, which many of my colleagues have already talked about. We are utterly complacent in this debate about where we are with community sport. We often talk in generalities in this place, thanking everybody for what they do, and that is all very well, but we have a major problem with participatory sport in the community.

I will take football as an example. Anywhere in the country, I could go and find hundreds of under-10s, under-11s and under-12s teams; I would not be able to move for teams at that level, and people are committed to those teams. By the age of 14 or 15, participation has dropped off a cliff. In Huddersfield, where I was brought up—although I am the proud MP for Bury North—in the under-11 age group there are 90 cricket teams. For under-17s and under-18s there are only six. Something significant is happening and I still do not know what.

We can all say, “Oh, the kids have got lots of other things to do,” but they are not doing any other physical activity. In the old cliché, the old man that I am might say, “They are sitting in their bedrooms watching social media,” but something happens—[Interruption.] I am an old man. Something happens to the initial flames that were set, the things that were making young kids play sport at that age. For the sports I am talking about, it causes participation to jump off a cliff.

Another thing we should take from this debate is what it says about us as a society. I will give an example. Bradley Mills cricket club in Huddersfield was formed in 1875. It survived two world wars and the great depression, and thrived in a disadvantaged area. It was central to the community over 100 years. Somehow, in the 1990s, the society that 50 years earlier had seen that club as part of the heart of the community and of the links that bound people together disappeared, and people could not be bothered anymore. That club, which offered an outlet for young people in that area of Huddersfield, disappeared.

When I was young, my dad played football in the Huddersfield league. The best team in that league, every year, was Brackenhall. Brackenhall is a disadvantaged area of Huddersfield, and the club gave an outlet to young people who had challenges in their lives. There were no state hand-outs, just local people in that area supporting a club. That club has now come to an end.

I could point to numerous other examples, as I am sure other colleagues could, of clubs, especially in working-class areas, that are vanishing before our eyes. When we go to middle-class areas and see 100 or 150 young kids playing cricket on a Friday night, we kid ourselves that cricket is thriving. I nearly want to cry when I go and watch Radcliffe cricket club, which is in the Bury South constituency—[Interruption.] I will bring my remarks to an end, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I just want to make this point. Radcliffe cricket club was where the great Gary Sobers played. Looking back at pictures of Radcliffe cricket club from the 1940s and 1950s, it was a wonderful place at the heart of its community and encouraged community and physical participation. It now struggles to raise one team, let alone anything else. So as we congratulate ourselves and expect the state to suddenly put in a lot of money to make everything all right, there are some fundamental questions about why community sports that thrived over 100 years are now dying in many areas.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

International Men’s Day

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Miriam Cates]

Absolutely. I think that the danger of not giving a positive version of masculinity—something that is unique, positive and good for society—is that, sadly, we are driving some young men and boys to the far right. They are given a version of masculinity that none of us here would support, but which offers them something that, at present, some of the discussions that take place in society do not offer. That is why it is so important that we do offer something to young boys.

I think that some of the economic and social changes that have taken place over the last 40 years have had benefits but have also led to significant costs, particularly for working-class men and boys. The decline of industry and hence of skilled, well-paid, secure jobs has caused a drop in wealth, health and status for many men.

The steelworks in the town of Stocksbridge in my constituency used to employ 11,000 men; it now employs 750. Steel jobs still pay 50% more than the average Yorkshire wage. They require skills and they confer status, but they are now few and far between. The economic and social consequences for men of the loss of such jobs have been severe. We need to consider how we can reinvest in British industry, not to go back to the past but to pivot to the skilled, advanced manufacturing jobs of the future, such as those at the specialty steel plant in my constituency. Not only would a revival in manufacturing and industry be good news for men; it would be beneficial for the UK economy, which has a terrible balance of trade—we make nowhere near enough stuff ourselves—and for our security and self-sufficiency in important materials such as steel.

While industrial and manufacturing jobs have declined, the number of young people going to university has soared. Of course, that has brought benefits, but there is no clear relationship between the number of graduates and the nation’s GDP, and we now have far more graduates than our economy requires. About 50% of recent graduates are thought to be in jobs that do not require that level of academic education. This focus—I might call it an obsession —on cognitive credentials and degrees over technical or vocational skills has been particularly disadvantageous to working-class young men.

Recent research shows that the median earnings of men who graduated from the bottom 23 universities are less than the median earnings of non-graduates. In other words, a significant number of younger men would be better off not going to university—and that is not to mention the debt they will acquire while there. I am delighted that the Government are pushing a skills agenda, but we must do more to open up apprenticeships to young men. The Chancellor’s announcement today that we will move towards a German and Swiss model of skills education is great news, but we should also consider whether some of our enormous higher education budget—I think it is about £14 billion a year—could be better deployed for the benefit of young people and the economy.

Men and boys have also suffered as a result of the decline in family stability over the last few decades. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, the most stable form of family—and the one with the best outcomes for children—is where the parents are married. That is not a value judgment; it is clear from the evidence. Married parents are twice as likely to stay together as non-married parents. By the age of five, 53% of children with cohabiting parents will have experienced their parents’ separation, compared to just 15% of those with married parents. Married men live happier, longer, healthier lives, and boys with committed, present fathers have better outcomes than boys in families who do not have that presence.

Marriage is good for men and boys, yet marriage rates have declined significantly over recent years, particularly among lower income groups. Marriage has almost become a middle-class secret. Of the highest earning 20% of white couples, about 85% are married. In the lowest income group—the bottom 20% of white people—only 19% are married, and the divorce rates are much higher. A poor white child is very unlikely to have a father; a rich white child is very likely to have a father. That is how stark the difference is.

There has been a rise in loneliness among middle-aged men as a result of family breakdown. Family breakdown is also contributing to the housing crisis. I think it might have been the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) who pointed out that a second home is needed when families break down. That adds to the housing crisis and creates financial problems for the family.

The UK is an outlier among western nations, in that our policies and our tax system do not recognise families, nor strong couple relationships and marriage. For example, in the UK we are taxed on an individual basis. HMRC sees only our individual income and we pay tax on that, without any account of how many people that income supports. If someone earns slightly more than £50,000 per year, which is considered a high wage—thinking about the tax thresholds—but they support, say, a family of six, they are taxed the same as a single person who earns the same amount but supports no one at all. As people enter the higher tax rate, they also lose their child benefit and there are all kinds of knock-on effects of the tax system. Other countries such as France, Germany, Canada and the US have different systems, in which the household is taxed or in which family policy recognises the benefits of parenting and supports families. We need to reform our taxation system to be much more pro-family and to make it easier for couples to stay together. I am delighted about the Government’s family hubs programme; we need to determine how family hubs will support fathers to be involved in the early years of bringing up their children.

Finally, there is an issue affecting the health and wellbeing of men, particularly boys, in a truly alarming way. We have a growing public health crisis as a result of the proliferation of online pornography. In 2020, pornography websites received more traffic than Twitter, Instagram, Netflix, Zoom, Pinterest and LinkedIn combined. For too long, society has viewed porn as a private matter, assuming that what people do in the privacy of their own home is their own business, but it is clear that the impacts on society have been significant and negative.

We must wake up to the destructive impacts of internet pornography. There is nothing “mainstream” about the porn now available online. Mainstream pornography platforms host vast quantities—unknown quantities—of filmed crimes: videos of trafficking, rape, non-consensual sexual violence, child sexual abuse material, sexual coercion, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable women and children, intrafamilial rape, humiliation, punishment, torture and pain, all available at the click of a mouse or the touch of an iPhone.

Analysis of 130,000 titles of videos that were recommended to first-time users of Pornhub and other major sites found that one in every eight described sexual activities that constitute sexual violence. “Teen” was the word that occurred most frequently across the dataset; the second most common category was physical aggression and sexual assault. Viewing such videos affects what men, particularly boys, think about sex—what they think is normal and what they think is acceptable.

It is right to think about the impact of pornography on women and girls. It is notable that so many high-profile rapes and murders in recent years, including the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, have been committed by men who were addicted to hardcore pornography. However, children’s consumption of online pornography has been associated with the dramatic increase in child-on-child sexual abuse, which now constitutes around a third of all child sexual abuse, so we also need to think about the negative impact on boys.

Approximately 50% of 12-year-olds have seen pornography online, and 1.4 million children in the UK access it each month. A UK survey found that 44% of boys aged between 11 and 16 who regularly viewed pornography reported that it gave them ideas about the type of sex that they wanted to try. We have seen the normalisation of strangulation during sex, and of anal sex among young people. A year or so ago, a case was reported of a boy who raped a girl in school; when the teacher asked him why he had not stopped, he said, “I thought it was normal for girls to cry during sex.” How are these boys ever going to enjoy normal, loving, fulfilling intimate relationships?

During puberty, boys’ brains develop an erotic imprint in which what they see as normal and appropriate sexual behaviour is laid down. That imprint will stay with them for the rest of their life. How many of these boys will be drawn into serious sex offences? How many will endure broken relationships or broken families, or never form relationships at all?

Pornography also affects boys’ health. There has been an increase in erectile dysfunction among teenage boys. At the extreme, the constant use of pornography can quickly lead men not to become aroused by anything other than hardcore online porn. That is why it is so important that we pass the Online Safety Bill when it returns to this House, and that it goes through the House of Lords and becomes an Act of Parliament. We must introduce secure age verification so that no children can access pornographic websites. We must stop children accidentally viewing or deliberately sharing pornographic images with one another online. While children’s brains are developing, it is so crucial that they do not have access to extreme material.

At the moment, internet pornography is completely unregulated. I am afraid that people who say it is parents’ responsibility to make sure their children do not view it are not living in the real world. Even if a child has no phone and no computer, all it takes is a classmate to put their own phone in front of the child for them to see this stuff. A child is only as safe as the least protected child in their class. It would be a bit like telling parents to teach their children to cross the road safely if there were no speed limit, no crossing points and no side of the road that we legally had to drive on—it would be completely impossible.

As well as being completely unregulated, internet pornography is a public health disaster. On top of the Online Safety Bill, we need the Department of Health and Social Care to lead a public inquiry into the harms of pornography—not only the harms to women and girls, the harms to the economy and the criminal aspects but the harms to boys and men and to their happiness, fulfilment and physical and mental health. The future social impact of this porn epidemic will be catastrophic if we do not protect our boys and girls. I believe that online pornography is the opiate trade of our age, and we should be outraged by what our children are seeing.

Our families, our communities and our nation need strong, confident, healthy and skilled boys and men. It is therefore in all our interests to invest in skills and industry, to support marriage and families, and to end the destruction caused by online pornography.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Steven Bonnar.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for opening this debate, all hon. and right hon. Members for their valuable contributions and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate on International Men’s Day, when we recognise not only the contribution of men to society but, more importantly, the long-lasting systemic issues faced by many of us.

As an MP sent here from Scotland, and as a representative of the Scottish National party, I stress the importance to me and my party that we persistently address inequality wherever and whenever we find it. As a nation and as a society, we will never truly flourish if we do not allow all our people the opportunities they deserve and the chance to fulfil their potential, whatever their social or economic background. For far too many men across these islands, that chance and those opportunities are not always possible. Indeed, they are becoming increasingly unattainable for many of us.

Far too often, we hear of the consequences of negative mental health for men but little of its factors and root causes. According to studies conducted by the Mental Health Foundation, societal expectations and traditional gender roles and stereotypes contribute to why men are far less likely to open up and discuss or seek support for their mental health problems.

We know that the gender stereotypes faced by women, such as the idea that they should behave, look or dress a certain way, can be hugely damaging not only to them as individuals but to society as a whole, and it is also important to understand that stereotypes and expectations can have a detrimental impact on many men. We find it difficult to talk about our feelings, to open up and to admit we are not coping well with the demands of life—that is to say, the demands that are real and present, but also those we perceive to be upon us.

Men are also more likely to turn to harmful coping methods, such as growing a dependency on drugs, alcohol or other harmful escapes. These actions, of course, serve only to exacerbate and compound poor mental health, leading to a downward spiral that far too often ends in the tragic act of a young man taking his own life. I take this opportunity to call, once again, on the UK Government to devolve drug policy to the Scottish Parliament, which will allow the Scottish Government to properly tackle the root causes of many of the tragic losses of life we see in Scotland week in, week out.

According to the latest figures from Public Health Scotland, 75% of those who died by suicide in 2021 were male, with the highest rate occurring in the 45 to 54-year-old age group. The probable suicide rate was three times higher in the most deprived communities in Scotland than in our most affluent areas. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) spoke about the impact of that. We know that work pressures, low pay, relationship breakdowns and parental alienation—being separated from our children after a relationship breakdown—are key factors that drive men to think suicide is an option.

The Scottish Government are determined to see a Scotland in which suicide is prevented and where help and support are available to anyone contemplating suicide, with further resources made available to anyone struggling with self-harm or thoughts of suicide. The Scottish Government’s new “Creating Hope Together” strategy takes a whole Government and society approach to tackling the social determinants of suicide, so that we take every opportunity to identify and support people who are feeling suicidal.

These kinds of actions and that type of compassion are, regrettably, not always present in this place, and we see that in the treatment of the most vulnerable people in our society. Young men in the UK asylum system are disproportionately impacted by Britain’s frankly inhumane system as it currently operates. The vilification from some in the Government and in the mainstream media only serves to add to that. When the Home Secretary uses terminology such as “invasion” to refer to young men asylum seekers, is she doing so with compassion? No, she is not, far from it.

We know the asylum system is broken, but after 12 years of Tory Government rule the onus of responsibility is on those on the Government Benches. They have created the mess and the backlog. It is they who have failed to repair a broken asylum system, and they must recognise the consequences of that for the mental health of men.

Last year, 46 charities dealing with issues of asylum, children and mental health, including the Refugee Council, the Children’s Society and Mind, wrote to the Health Minister in charge of suicide prevention and highlighted the dozens of suicides they had discovered among teenage male asylum seekers fleeing persecution in their home countries. Zoe Gardner, former policy advocacy manager at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, gave these poignant words in response to the UK Government’s current asylum policy:

“You can be a man and a refugee. You can be a man and a victim of trauma, torture and sexual violence. You can be a man with disabilities. You can be a man who has lived closeted or been abused because of their sexuality. The narrative that men somehow are not vulnerable and are not in need of protection is completely false. Men are very often the ones targeted in the first place in refugee producing countries.”

If the UK Government will not heed the advice on mental health provisions and echo the progressive vision of the Scottish Government to attempt to mitigate the high rate of suicides and poor mental health regulations, then we again call for the devolution of immigration powers to the Scottish Parliament, which is a Parliament that has proven time and again that no matter where people have come from, or their financial background, their wellbeing will always be our priority.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call shadow Minister Yasmin Qureshi.

Australia and New Zealand Trade Deals

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The CPTPP has provisions for its own dispute resolution and they are modelled on what happens in the WTO, but here is the thing: if we do not get the negotiation right with CPTPP it might undermine our ability to practise our own SPS regime and have independence in this area.

If we were to have a significant increase in Australian beef, because we had been forced by a court or a dispute resolution service to allow hormones in beef—and there have been close challenges in the past, through the WTO—that would be intolerable for any British Government. The Government of the day would probably have to trigger article 32.8 of the agreement and give six months’ notice to terminate the FTA. In my view the best clause in our treaty with Australia is that final clause, because it gives any UK Government present or future an unbridled right to terminate and renegotiate the FTA at any time with just six months’ notice. Many Members will remember that we had hours of fun in the last Parliament discussing triggering article 50 of the treaty on European Union; I suspect we would prefer not to have to go back to that, but article 32.8 is the ultimate and final sanction, which, as things have turned out, is a critical safeguard given the size of the concessions made to Australia in the trade deal.

What lessons should we learn? First, and most important, we should not set arbitrary timescales for concluding negotiations. The UK went into this negotiation holding the strongest hand—holding all the best cards—but at some point in early summer 2021 the then Trade Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) took a decision to set an arbitrary target to conclude heads of terms by the time of the G7 summit, and from that moment the UK was repeatedly on the back foot. In fact, at one point the then Trade Secretary asked her Australian opposite number what he would need in order to be able to conclude an agreement by the time of the G7. Of course, the Australian negotiator kindly set out the Australian terms, which eventually shaped the deal.

We must never repeat that mistake. The Minister and Secretary of State will currently be getting submissions from officials saying that we need to join the CPTPP in a hurry and that if we do not do so now we will not join the club early enough and will not be shaping the rules—they will be saying, “We might miss the boat, this is a crucial part of the Pacific tilt” and so on. But the best thing the Minister can do is go back and tell Crawford Falconer, “I don’t care if it takes a decade to do this agreement; we will get the right agreement—we will never again set the clock against ourselves and shatter our own negotiating position.”

The second lesson is that we must look at making a machinery of government change. I believe all responsibility for agrifood negotiations, including relating to tariff rate quotas, should be transferred from the Department for International Trade to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because DEFRA has superior technical knowledge in this area. It is important to remember that DEFRA never left the world stage; the DIT is a new creation with people often lacking experience but doing their best to pick things up, whereas even during the EU era DEFRA maintained a presence in trade negotiations, advising and informing the EU’s position and dealing with matters such as market access around the globe. DEFRA is worldly and has deep technical knowledge in this area and it should, therefore, take full responsibility for negotiating TRQs in agrifood.

The third change we must look at making is strengthening the role of Parliament in scrutinising and perhaps even agreeing the negotiating mandate. Countries such as Japan and the United States and the EU all use their parliamentary processes to their advantage. When we were negotiating with Japan and seeking to increase access for British cheese, I remember Japan said, “We would love to, but unfortunately we can’t because there is a parliamentary motion that we cannot breach. Therefore, we cannot retreat on this position.” The UK does not have that. We could use Parliament and a mandate agreed by Parliament to say to trading partners, “We’re not able to agree to what you’re asking for.” However, if they perceive that Crawford Falconer calls the shots and that he will always go through some back channel to get something agreed, we will not be in a strong position and our negotiating position will be undermined.

That brings me to my final point. I have always been a huge fan of the British civil service; I was never a Minister or politician to level criticism at them. I enjoyed nine years of incredibly good relations with civil servants at all levels, but I do want to raise a comment about personnel within the Department for International Trade. Crawford Falconer, currently the interim permanent secretary, is not fit for that position, in my experience. His approach was always to internalise Australian demands, often when they were against UK interests, and his advice was invariably to retreat and make fresh concessions. All the while, he resented people who had a greater understanding of technical issues than he did. It was perhaps something of a surprise when he arrived from New Zealand to find that there were probably several hundred civil servants in the UK civil service who understood trade better than he did, and he has not been good, over the years, at listening to them. He has now done that job for several years, and it would be a good opportunity for him to move on and for us to get a different type of negotiator in place—somebody who understands British interests better than he has been able to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

UK-India Trade Deal

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her incredible service as Secretary of State for International Trade in the past year. She moved things forward in so many areas—crucially the area we are discussing. When I left the Department, an India trade deal was just a concept rather than something material. Five rounds of negotiations later, she is right that we are in a good place.

We expect the deal to do a lot on tariffs. Many of our exporters face considerable tariffs on services—professional, financial and legal. I cannot promise that we will get everything in the deal. On intellectual property, it will be easier for companies to work through innovation and so on. There is a huge number of areas of potential gain for India, including investment and life sciences. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s support. Perhaps the Opposition will take it as a lesson and support a trade deal in future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call SNP spokesperson Drew Hendry.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Welcoming a Minister back to his place is now a standard response, but I welcome the Minister back.

Increased trade, ties and co-operation between India and the UK are welcome, especially in Scotland. However, that should not be at the expense of human and workers’ rights. Will the Minister belatedly guarantee that issues about human rights, the environment and health and safety, along with climate and equality concerns are fully resolved before any deal is signed?

Does the Minister really believe that there is no anger and no problem about the Home Secretary’s comments in India that might cause difficulties for the deal?

Scotch whisky exports to India are already subject to 150% tariffs. New Delhi has threatened even higher tariffs on whisky and gin in retaliation for domestic steel protections. Whisky and gin producers need to know that the UK Government are doing something to reduce those tariffs drastically. What is going on? What will be done to ensure that barriers are not just replaced at Indian state level?

Jagtar Singh Johal remains in an Indian prison without trial. He has been detained since 2017. The UK has had four Prime Ministers and five Foreign Secretaries since his illegal detention. What is the Minister doing during negotiations to right that wrong?

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I know I have made a lot of interventions today. One of the reasons for Brexit, of course, was to leave the EU to make trade deals with the likes of New Zealand and Australia, which we are discussing today, but the EU has done a trade deal with New Zealand that is arguably better—[Interruption.] It is better, in fact. And the EU is heading for a deal with Australia as well. That might annoy the Brexiteers, but I really wonder what the future status of these deals might be if at some point the UK rejoins the European Union, or if, after Scotland becomes independent, it rejoins the European Union, and England and Wales trot in behind. Where will these trade deals be then? I do not think the Government have given that point any consideration. The deals are transitory.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

That was a very long intervention.

[Paul Blomfield]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and expertise on trade deals, but I do not think his question is really directed at me. He and others have made the point that the fact that the parliamentary scrutiny period for the CRaG process expired without debate means that there has been no real opportunity for us to look at the deal. The International Trade Secretary studiously dodged meetings of the Select Committee until it was too late for meaningful engagement. Today we are being asked to pass bare-bones legislation implementing an agreement that we have not been given the opportunity to scrutinise.

This matters because these deals set the scene for the way we approach post-Brexit trade negotiations. We have not done trade negotiations for many years, so it is important that we learn from the way this deal is handled and get it right in the future—we clearly did not get it right this time. Parliamentary scrutiny and oversight matter. As the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, they are important not simply for the health of our democracy, but for our economy. Members have a valuable contribution to make, as we have heard in this debate.

The reasons for the avoidance of scrutiny are becoming clearer. I know the hon. Member for Huntingdon requested positivity, but we need honesty as well. The Government’s own estimate of the benefits of the Australia deal are that it will contribute 0.08% to GDP by 2035; their assessment of the New Zealand deal is that it will add nothing to GDP. As many Members have highlighted, for key sectors, the figures are worse.

The NFU is concerned that UK agriculture will suffer as a result of the Australia deal. Its president, Minette Batters, explained that

“Despite assurances that these sectors would be afforded some level of protection, we will see full liberalisation of dairy after just six years, sugar after eight years and beef and lamb after 15 years.”

That means no restrictions on imports and open market access, which leaves no protection for UK agriculture or our standards, rights and protections. She continued:

“Just as concerningly, the UK has agreed to beef and lamb quotas which will favour imports of high-value cuts, despite this being the end of the market where British farmers tend to derive any value from their hard work. It’s also difficult to discern anything in this deal that will allow us to control imports of food produced below the standards legally required of British farmers”.

Standards are not just important to farmers; 95% of British people think it is important to maintain British food standards through trade deals. There is also concern in the agriculture sector that Australia approves the use of almost three times the level of pesticides as the UK does.

I served with representatives from every party in this House and representatives from across business and industry on the UK Trade and Business Commission. As part of our work on this deal, we heard, for example, from a beef farmer, Jilly Creed, who explained that hormone beef and antibiotic use is a big concern in the sector. She illustrated the differences between UK and Australian practice in the industry in relation to animal welfare and environmental safeguards, telling us that

“Our cattle go 30 miles down the road and are slaughtered within two hours of leaving this farm. Cattle in Australia can travel up to 24 hours without food and water”.

Kieran Box, of Friends of the Earth, talked to us about environmental issues, saying that

“Prioritising a negotiating partner like Australia…with a lack of progress towards climate targets, with some fairly poor enforcement of environmental laws at the state level, and with the lack of enforceable commitments that we see in the FTA to progress on multilateral environmental agreements, it just feels that we have a set of multilateral environmental commitments on one side and we have a set of trade agreements on the other that pay lip service to those, but in practice they are contributing…to emissions.”

The TUC told us that the sanctions mechanism in these deals for issues such as workers’ rights degradation are so

“restrictive and difficult to be actually brought into action that we don’t think it’s going to be possible to use”.

It is clear that, desperate for a post-Brexit deal, the Government were willing to secure this one at any price, regardless of the damage to communities, industries and the environment. That underlines the importance of effective parliamentary scrutiny. There is real concern that the regulation-making powers in clauses 1 and 2 will enable existing legislation to be amended significantly without scrutiny, undermining parliamentary sovereignty and transferring yet more power to the Executive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to send this Government to Brussels to learn some lessons in respect and how to run a Union? This is not a way to run a Union.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

That is not a point of order.

UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Fair play to Canberra, because they have no’ half scored a great deal with this one. It must be delicious to have scored such a great trade deal over your former overlords in London. I look forward to the benefits that this will bring to Scottish distilling—gin and whisky—but if exports of lamb and sheep meat from Australia to the United Kingdom are so insignificant to the Australians, why did you not write them out of the deal, because it is what you are getting the most heat on—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he does not refer directly to the Secretary of State.

[Dave Doogan]

I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why did the Minister not seek to write those exports out of the deal, and will she take a second opportunity to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) about what she will do if she finds herself at odds with the devolved Administrations in the devolved nations? Will she simply ram through her agenda with the UK United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I am passionate about free trade, and so are the farmers in Cumbria and so, I assume, are the farmers in Northumberland. No free trade is really free if it is not fair. When it comes to animal welfare, this deal clearly is not fair. I wonder whether the Secretary of State truly comprehends the astonishing difference in terms of animal welfare standards between farming, and livestock farming in particular, in her own community and in mine compared with Australia. There are staggering and astonishing differences in scale—the fact that we have close husbandry in this country and vast areas and no husbandry in Australia. Moreover, there is the lack of humane standards in abattoirs and also when it comes to the transportation of livestock. Surely this deal undermines our farmers, undermines the standards that we hold dear and throws our agriculture under a bus in order to get a cheap deal. How will she reply to her own farmers who will be as shocked and appalled as I am by much of this deal?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We need slightly briefer questions if we are to get everybody in. There is a ten-minute rule Bill and then business after that. If I am to get everybody in, we just need to speed up a little bit.

Free Trade Agreement: New Zealand

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The UK has some of the finest standards in the world, and indeed some of the finest produce, which is exported with great success across the world. As our landmark Environment Bill comes through and work continues to set out the new frameworks to support our farming communities since we have left the common agricultural policy, we will be working hand in glove with all our farming communities to ensure that they have the support and the drive to be successful 21st century farming businesses that are able to take up the opportunities that all the free trade deals—not only those with Australia and New Zealand but all those to come—will bring to take their great products into markets across the world.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Final question—Ben Lake.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware of similar concerns expressed by the agricultural unions in Wales overnight and this morning in the light of the agreement in principle. Given that the Government’s own analysis suggests that the number of people working in agriculture may be negatively impacted by this deal, I think those concerns are well founded. May I ask her, quite simply: how will Ceredigion farmers benefit from this deal?

Protecting Britain’s Steel Industry

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jayawardena]

No. We should all greatly value Britain’s reputation as a champion of global free and fair trade. We should not want to take actions that risk being found to be non-compliant at the WTO. The Secretary of State takes her responsibilities very seriously in considering the recommendation from the TRA, but the truth is that the best way forward, the right way forward, for our steel producers lies in free and fair trade. Together, we can make sure that this vital British industry enjoys a sustainable long-term future. The British people should be in no doubt: this people’s Government are backing our steel manufacturers; this people’s Government are backing the tens of thousands of jobs in the industry; and this people’s Government will continue to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, I remind colleagues that there is a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. If colleagues take less than three minutes, more people will get in—at the moment, not everyone will get in. I should also say that if colleagues choose to take interventions, I would be grateful if they still stuck to three minutes. Thank you. I call Marion Fellows, for the SNP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He actually did the next part of my speech, so I can move on and let more Back Benchers in.

It is quite hard to talk about global Britain when a UK foundation industry, such as steel, is being put to the wall by a Government who seem not only not to understand manufacturing but to think that it is okay to allow a foundation industry to try to compete with both hands tied behind its back. The UK Government said that they wanted to “take back control” from bureaucrats, but they are allowing the TRA, an unelected body, to make shattering decisions on the steel sector. This is a Government just like Thatcher’s Government, who closed Ravenscraig in my constituency. The UK Government have the power to protect steel jobs, but they are actively undermining steelworkers and the steel sector and risking jobs. Boris Johnson is finishing off Thatcher’s mission to destroy Scotland and the rest—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The hon. Lady should not really refer to the Prime Minister by name; she should say “Prime Minister”.

[Marion Fellows]

I am sorry—the Prime Minister is finishing off Thatcher’s mission to destroy Scotland and the rest of the UK’s industrial base.

Contrast that with what the Scottish National party Scottish Government have done for steel in Scotland. The Scottish steel taskforce was set up at the same time as the UK taskforce, or a few months later, to save the Dalzell works and the Clydebridge plant. From day one, the focus was on making these plants productive again. The Lanarkshire steelworks had closed in 2015 and the Fort William smelter was poised to close before the Scottish Government interventions in 2016. The Scottish Government helped Liberty Steel to reopen Dalzell, and direct job numbers have recovered. In Lochaber, 165 direct jobs have been saved—not many, but in Lochaber, that is a huge number of jobs—and 44 new jobs were created by the GFG Alliance.

The Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise supported Liberty’s acquisition of Dalzell and Clydebridge steelworks. Scottish Enterprise provided support through a £7 million commercial loan to Liberty Steel and the business has successfully re-entered the heavy steel plate market. Scottish Enterprise recognises the challenging environment for businesses in Scotland right now and the significant economic benefit that Liberty Steel brings in terms of jobs, the supply chain and the future safeguarding of Scotland’s steel industry. Scottish Enterprise is in discussion with Liberty Steel on repayment of the loan funding, and, of course, debt forbearance is not uncommon in the current market.

The GFG Alliance has said that its Scottish businesses are performing strongly and have access to sufficient resources for their current needs. There has been no call on the Government guarantee and the Government receive a fee from the business for providing the guarantee, and the guarantee is backed by security over its assets. In Scotland, there is political will to support the steel industry. Where is that will in the UK Government? It appears that this UK Government are happy to give a hand to their cronies, but are willing to allow steel, a foundation industry, to founder under unfair competition and high energy prices. There is a reluctance to help an industry that provides decent, well-paid jobs and that could supply steel for the green energy industry and infrastructure for recovery after this coronavirus pandemic.

Finally, will the Minister be added to the list of his predecessors who talked a good game, but refused to actually help the steel sector? Minister, we are waiting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]]

One of the reasons that I spent so many hours in Committee opposing the Trade Bill in the previous Parliament was to avoid precisely the sort of nonsense that we are discussing today. The recommendation by the TRA to remove safeguards on nine out of 19 product categories takes us back five years to the crisis that we experienced in 2016. It will leave half of steel products exposed to a flood of imports. We know this because prior to the introduction of the current steel safeguards, UK imports of steel increased by 25% between 2013 and 2017, severely undermining our own industry.

The Government failed to ensure that the TRA would protect and defend British producers. They engineered the membership of the body such that not only does the Secretary of State maintain full control of who is appointed and what its remit will be, but no voice can even be raised to temper the Government’s dogmatic fixation on what their own warped vision of free trade happens to be.

Labour tabled a series of amendments to ensure a level playing field for British industry. The Government voted down every single one of those amendments—and now where are we? We are left with a whole industry that is rightly angry and confused: confused as to why trade unions and employers were not consulted at any stage in respect of the TRA recommendations; confused as to why the TRA has shown such a lack of understanding about the interconnectedness of the industry, as assessment of product categories separately cannot provide an accurate picture of the threat of an increase in imports, nor the damage that it would cause; confused as to why out-of-date data was used that does not include volumes of smaller imports, where there was an increase in 17 of the 19 product categories that the TRA has simply not accounted for; and confused as to why, at a time when the EU and US are maintaining their safeguards, we are stripping ours away.

This decision will leave our market open to import surges just as the sector recovers from covid-19, and at a time when our exports to the EU and US will still be subject to tariffs and quotas. It is reported that the EU and the US are in bilateral negotiations to end tariffs on steel products with a deadline of the end of the year. So, well done to the Secretary of State—it looks as if she has engineered a situation where our steel exporters will not only be undermined in their own domestic market by cheap subsidised steel from China and the far east; they will also face a 25% tariff to enter the US, just as their EU competitors will face no barriers at all. The incompetence is staggering.

The sector employs 33,000 people. It is a sector that communities and towns are built around. It is a sector that is highly innovative and has continually bounced back from crisis after crisis—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech. We must move on because I need to get as many people in as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

The decision whether to extend safeguards in steel production is the first real test of the UK’s independent trade policy. As of today, it is a test that the Government have woefully failed. The recommendation of TRID, now confirmed by the TRA, is a crushing blow to the UK steel industry, coming at a time when it faces myriad challenges, both long and short term. The recommendation will leave almost half of all UK-produced steel production categories and a third of UK-produced steel by volume at the mercy of import surges, with devastating consequences. The interconnected nature of the industry means that those consequences will be felt across the sector.

Both the US and the EU are almost certain to extend their own safeguards. In contrast, Britain stands ready to open up our own markets, leaving import challenges inevitable; at the same time, our exports will face substantial tariff barriers, placing UK-produced steel at a huge disadvantage in the global markets. For years, the Government have blamed EU rules for their own failure to provide the UK steel industry with the backing it deserves. Now, free from those rules, rather than fighting to protect our industries, the Government are using steel as the canary in the coalmine.

This decision could not come at a worse time for the industry. In Rotherham, my constituents face profound uncertainty. The crisis that has engulfed Liberty Steel has placed steel production in the town in jeopardy. Steel is central to our local economy. With more than 900 Liberty staff based in Rotherham and many more workers in the steel supply chains, its loss would be a colossal blow, but more is at stake than the economic impact. Steel is integral to our town’s identity, its pride, its heritage. Although there has been some good news recently, with Liberty reiterating its commitment to the Aldwarke plant, the decision to seek a buyer for its specialist steels arms, which include the Brinsworth narrow strip mill, is a cause of real concern.

To date, the Government have done little more than keep a watching brief. We cannot allow this to continue. The Government must play an active role to make sure that our industry is secure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now go via videolink to Grahame Morris. To reiterate, if he speaks for less than three minutes, we will get more people in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

We have heard impassioned speeches on both side of the House from Members who represent steelmaking constituencies. I am really pleased that the motion from my hon. Friends also recognises the importance of those in the supply chain, because in Chesterfield, with our close proximity to Sheffield, we have a long-standing history of supply to the steel industry, and that is incredibly important.

What is slightly missing from this debate is how crucial the steel industry is not just to those people employed directly in it or those supplying it, but to manufacturing in the UK more broadly. In terms of the role of global Britain and supporting global manufacturing, having a competitive steel industry here in the UK is absolutely crucial and we must give that support. I feel that the Government do not think through the consequences of us being entirely dependent on China, in terms of our global independence. When I heard the contribution from the Minister at the start of the debate, it made me wonder if that was really the party that, just a few months ago, was claiming that they would enable us to “take back control”, because he simply stood at the Dispatch Box, threw his arms in the air and said that there is nothing that we can do. I am glad that there are some Government Members—in Stocksbridge, in Scunthorpe—who do recognise how dangerous this will be. Let us see how they vote later today and whether they do so based on the sentiments that they laid out.

Manufacturers in Chesterfield have been coming to me saying that the steel prices that have rocketed up recently and a Government who are washing their hands of any responsibility are making UK manufacturers outside the steel industry desperately concerned that they will no longer be competitive in future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Beth Winter, who has two minutes.

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I come from a family of Welsh industrial workers. My father and grandfather were coalminers and my other grandfather worked for the steel industry. The steel industry is a vital part of the Welsh economy. Along with the coal industry, it is part of our industrial heritage, and I want steel to be part of our future, too. I have seen at first hand the devastation caused to communities by the closure of the mining industry and I do not want the same to happen to the steel industry. It employs thousands in jobs in Wales, and many through the supply chain, and the median salary in the steel sector is around £34,000 a year. While this may seem humble to the average Tory, it is 45% above the median salary in Wales. It provides stable, well-paid jobs—gold dust in parts of the country such as mine that have been neglected by successive Tory Governments.

The Government talk of levelling up, but we judge them by their actions, not their words. Their failure to protect and modernise the industry adequately belies the levelling-up rhetoric. Levelling up for the steel industry in Wales will be sacrificed on the altar of the Government’s uncaring pursuit of free trade agreements. If Wales is to meet its carbon emissions target, the steel industry needs considerable investment, and the UK will not achieve its target for emissions unless the steel industry in Wales is adequately financed to enable this to happen.

There are measures that this Government can take to protect the British steel industry, particularly in this post-Brexit world. Not to take those steps would be an abrogation of the Government’s responsibility to the British people. Not to invest in the necessary infrastructure for the future green industry would be a denial of their obligations to future generations. That is why I fully support this motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I apologise to those who have not been able to get in, but I need to start the wind-ups now.

Trade Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 3E. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

After Clause 2

Trade agreements and genocide

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

There is very limited time in this debate.

However, we regret that we cannot support the creation of a parliamentary judicial Committee as envisaged in Lord Alton’s amendment, as it blurs the distinction between the legislative and the judicial, and runs contrary to Government policy that it is for competent courts to make determinations of genocide.

Finally, I would like to highlight the statement that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made earlier today on the sanctions that the Government will be undertaking. I hope that that is another illustration of the Government’s commitment in this very important area, taking tough action on China in relation to Xinjiang with Magnitsky sanctions, in conjunction with our international allies.

In the light of what I have said, I hope hon. Members will support amendments 3C and 3D.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Nusrat Ghani.

Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I inform the House that there will be a three-minute limit on speeches for Back Benchers. There is a countdown clock for those in the Chamber, and for those participating virtually it will be on their screens.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

By my calculations, it has been three years, two months and two weeks since this House first debated the Government’s proposed Trade Bill, so if today’s debate proves to be the final one on a long drawn-out Bill, it would be appropriate to thank all Members of both Houses, all the parliamentary Clerks and all the officials in the Department for International Trade who have contributed to its passage.

Looking back at the very first day of debate in January 2018, I was struck by two things that were said by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the then Secretary of State, which seem very prescient in retrospect. The first was:

“Trade is an issue that transcends party politics”.—[Official Report, 9 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 220.]

Time and again over the past three years, we have seen that to be the case, as Members from all sides of the House have campaigned together on different issues from farming standards to online harms. It seems fitting, after more than three years, that we should have been left with one final issue to resolve: a cross-party consensus on where we stand as a Parliament and on what we believe as a country will be most important.

That relates to the second thing that the former Secretary of State said three years ago, which I believe is equally relevant today. He said that

“trade is not only about self-interested commercial gain.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 209.]

For me, that simple statement of principle goes to the heart of the debate we have had in recent months, and especially in the past week, about human rights and trade. It goes to the heart of the decision that we have to take today on the Alton amendment to the genocide amendment.

I know that some people believe that the choices we make as a country on with whom to sign trade deals should be entirely dictated by our commercial interests and that considerations about human rights should be dealt with entirely separately. But there is another point of view—I believe it is shared by the majority of people in this country and by the majority of MPs in this House—which is simply this: there is a line that needs to be drawn; there are certain countries whose crimes are so great that they cannot simply be ignored on the basis of commercial self-interest; and Britain as a country must be willing to say no to trade deals with countries that cross that line.

The Alton amendment, as advanced today by the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), seeks to draw that line by giving Parliament the power to debate whether Britain should sign any form of bilateral trade or investment deal with a Government held responsible for genocide by our country’s most experienced judges. Whether Members in this House decide to support the amendment today should have nothing to do with what party they represent. It should have nothing to do with the long overdue sanctions against Chinese officials announced by the Foreign Secretary earlier today. With all due respect to the Minister for Trade Policy, it should have nothing to do with the points of constitutional precedence that he made in his opening speech.

Whether we support the Alton amendment should only come down to the fundamental question, which is one we must all ask ourselves: should Britain be willing to sign trade agreements with Governments who are committing genocide? Should Britain be willing to sign trade deals with a Government who are engaging in torture, mass detention, slave labour, organ harvesting and non-judicial executions—not on an isolated basis, but on an industrial scale—against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang? Should Britain be willing to sign trade deals with a Government who are separating hundreds of thousands of children from their parents and re-educating them in different languages, religion and history in an attempt to wipe the Uyghur culture off the Chinese map? Should Britain be willing to sign trade deals with a Government who are carrying out the systematic sexual abuse, rape and sterilisation of hundreds of thousands of women in Xinjiang in an attempt to guarantee that this current generation of Uyghur children is the last?

I cannot see how anyone in this House can read the evidence of those crimes being committed against the Uyghurs and think that a potential trade or investment deal with China can be considered only on its commercial merits and not on the basis of morality. That is surely where we need to draw the line, and that is what the Alton amendment seeks to do. That is why I urge Members from all parts of the House to look into their souls this afternoon, to vote with their conscience and to make clear that this is the line that Britain is not prepared to cross.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I notice that the countdown timer is running, but I assume that I get the Front-Bench privilege for this speech.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The hon. Gentleman certainly does. It is a mistake if the countdown timer is running.

[Drew Hendry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The original intent of the Lords amendment on genocide was to bind the Government, to ensure that their trade policy was not actively engaging in propping up the economy of a country that was committing genocide. The SNP regarded that as being reflective of the bare minimum standards of what should be our commitments to human rights and global citizenship. I say “bare minimum” because much more power should be given to that commitment than was contained even in that amendment. We should see an approach along the lines of a comprehensive cross-departmental strategy aimed at preventing atrocities and binding the Government in their behaviour and intent. The original amendment from Lord Alton was a bit hingum-tringum; despite the fact that it was not nearly strong enough, we supported it, as it was at least a step in the right direction. Make no mistake: as we debate the text of this Bill, we are very far away from even that place.

Any idea that we are actively debating accountability on human rights, even on the terms originally intended, is blown apart by the very Government texts that the House is now considering. The Government have maintained that they do not need the law to reflect their commitments to human rights, and that they would not do anything to compromise them. Furthermore, they maintain that their so-called compromise amendment facilitates a new level of commitment, but as soon as one Minister pours honey in the public’s ears, another drops the mask and lets slip the poisonous truth that condemns those warm words as cozenage.

It is clear from the remarks of the Foreign Secretary, who is also the de facto Deputy Prime Minister, that there is absolutely no substance to the Government’s rhetoric about their being champions for human rights at every turn; shamefully, they are willing to actively pursue an unethical trade policy. If there was ever any doubt about the hollowness of the maxim of global Britain, it has rung out loud and clear in the Foreign Secretary’s words. The amendment backed by the Government is completely inadequate in checking their actions. It would bind them to naught, and it is crystal clear that in reality the Government would rather not be subject to any moral position or restriction on their trade policy.

The Government could have committed in the Bill to maintaining existing consumer and labour standards; they turned that chance down, and the public should ask why. The answer is because they are all too willing and ready to sacrifice them to get a deal—any deal. Anyone naive enough to think that that is not the case should look at what is happening with the NHS and human rights. The Government could have taken the opportunity to ensure the protection of all aspects of the NHS from private foreign procurement, but they turned the chance down. Why? Well, in a sign of the times, they have been busy allowing the sale of NHS GP practices to US companies, with the US health insurance giant Centene Corp quietly assuming control of the care of half a million patients in recent weeks. Donald Trump may mercifully be gone, but few will forget the rare moment of honesty when he confirmed that the NHS is on the table in a US-UK trade deal. We all know that it very much still is. His Tory cohorts are still here and have earned zero trust over their deeds and actions.

We now see the Government looking to shirk their commitments on matching their trade policy to our values on protecting human rights. Why? Again, we know exactly why, thanks to the words of the Foreign Secretary. The cat is not only out of the bag, but running feral, alerting the world to the fact that human rights abuses will not matter to the UK. This Government will forgive almost anything in their haste to get a deal—any deal. They turned down the chance to do the right thing. We can hear loudly and clearly that behind the scenes, this does not matter to the Government; publicly, we can see the Government retreating from their legally binding manifesto commitment to international aid spending. The amendment does not do justice to the intentions of Members from all parties who have sought to meet that commitment head-on.

The Government’s empty words on global Britain have no bearing on virtually any aspect of their policy on protecting the most vulnerable around the world, on how we determine any notion of responsibility for who the UK sells arms to, or now, apparently, who we trade with. If this issue were not so serious, it would be laughable that this Government are trying to rest on laurels that simply do not exist. They should wake up to the reality that the UK’s moral standing is already badly damaged. This legislation makes matters worse. With their actions today, the Government have done nothing to repair that standing; they are solely responsible for bringing it into such disrepute.

Today, as the UK Food and Drink Federation publishes details of how exports of beef, pork and cheese to the EU have been savaged, having fallen by more than 80%—for salmon it is 98%, which is in effect an utter wipeout of a major Scottish export—another poll shows that the people of Scotland have had enough of this attitude; it confirms majority support for independence, as does the long-term poll tracking. The people of Scotland see for themselves the economic and moral vacuums being created by this Tory Government. When they look at this shameful situation, they know that the only way to protect our international trade reputation, and to be represented in the way that they want, as global citizens, is if Scotland once again joins the international community as an independent nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Tonight the Government have to decide whether they allow Parliament to intervene in trade deals, specifically in relation to genocide. We have all heard the stories of mass rape, concentration camps, people unable to have babies, brainwash and cultural genocide. The issue is whether Parliament is given the ability, on the basis of evidence, to restrict trade in these situations.

Last time, of course, we saw a Lords amendment that said that the courts should decide whether there is conclusive evidence of genocide, and then we—the politicians in Parliament—would decide whether we restricted trade or not. It was said that these were not competent courts. Of course if you refer to “competent courts” as international courts, China can veto them, which defeats the object. It was said that that amendment would mean judicial interference in Parliament, when of course it would not.

The Lords have come back with a new amendment, saying, “Fair enough; if that’s the way you see it, we’ll have a Committee making decisions on the basis of concrete evidence that is judicially prepared.” Now the Government are saying, “Well, you can’t do that because that’s the judiciary interfering with Parliament.” They cannot have it both ways. It does seem that, in essence, this is an intentional evasion by the Government to prevent Parliament from its solemn duty to defend our intrinsic values.

I certainly do not accept the point made by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) that the Government have some sort of mandate to muzzle debate and blur scrutiny. We must be free to debate and to decide based on the evidence. The Government must explain what they are doing if trade continues with perpetrators of genocide. We should know the economic cost of protecting our values and decide whether to act.

These are fundamental questions of humanity. The Government have no right to quash or stifle our parliamentary duty to consider them. The fundamental question is: are we going to bow to the power of China and back-room deals, or are we going to rejoice and empower Britain’s gift to the world—that is, robust and unfettered parliamentary debate on the basis of sound evidence in order to make key decisions on when and whether to put our values above our economic interests? We are morally obliged to support this amendment, and I certainly will be doing so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The last speaker before I call the Minister is Paul Howell.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) [V]]

As a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which recently produced our report on Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang and UK value chains, I understand the concerns lodged around trading with countries where genocide is suspected to be happening, or, in particular, where it is felt it is almost certain that it is happening. The supply chains of all companies operating in this space need to either dramatically increase their capability and delivery of transparency, or accept the presumption that they are profiteering from exploitation.

It is who determines getting past the key statement of whether genocide is happening in law that this amendment questions, and I believe it is clear that the place for that determination is in the courts. The Government have been consistently clear that it is for competent courts, not Committees, to make determinations of genocide. I do not believe it needs a trade agreement discussion to engage in actions on concerns as significant as genocide. I welcome the statement earlier by the Foreign Secretary on taking steps, along with our partners, where evidence is apparent of actions incompatible with our values. I wholeheartedly support his words. Indeed, I would encourage him to go further.

I believe the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) meets the concerns raised around parliamentary scrutiny in that, should a credible concern of genocide be raised within a country that we are proposing a new free trade agreement with, it ensures that a debate and a vote in Parliament would result. Credible reports rather than determination is a lower level of proof for stimulating this intervention, and that is wholly appropriate, as the practical difficulties in proving genocidal intent mean that genocide is very difficult to prove even when apparently obvious.

I am convinced of the need for us to ensure that any new free trade agreements should not be made with countries where there is a credible concern regarding genocide or, indeed, any other significant human rights issues, but I am not convinced that this amendment is the mechanism by which it should be done.