UK-USA Trade Agreements (Parliamentary Scrutiny)

14:23:00

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any trade agreement between the UK and the USA which the Government proposes to implement; to prohibit the implementation of such an agreement without the approval by resolution of each House; to make provision for the amendment of such agreements by Parliament; and for connected purposes. Let us cast our minds back four years to the spring of 2021. Liz Truss was the Secretary of State for International Trade. Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. The export of British goods to the EU had fallen sharply in January of that year, and the end of the Brexit transition period was nigh. The Government were in a hurry. Boris Johnson sat down for dinner with the Australian Prime Minister here in Westminster. After three hours of small talk, a little negotiation and plenty of Australian red wine, Johnson agreed to remove tariffs on over 99% of Australian products entering the UK, including beef. The Government knew that such a deal would harm the UK agriculture and food industries. The Government’s own analysis predicted that the deal could leave the UK agriculture and food sectors £278 million worse off. The Australian high commissioner, who had been sitting at the table, moved quickly. Scribbling down Johnson’s generous pledge, he excused himself to go to the toilet and handed a note to an aide as he did so. Within minutes it was scanned, turned into a formal trade document, printed and slipped into an official-looking folder. The high commissioner then casually walked back into the dinner carrying the so-called deal. That was all it took to sell out the UK’s farmers: a wine-soaked dinner, a hastily scribbled note and a signature from a Prime Minister prepared to ignore the good advice of his own trade negotiators. Without proper parliamentary scrutiny and a vote on any deal with the United States, we risk adding to the pressure on our already struggling farmers, stripping away safeguards on British citizens’ data and sidelining democratic scrutiny itself. Currently, parliamentary scrutiny of international treaties in the UK is woefully inadequate. The Government can negotiate and sign a treaty with another country—even one as significant as the US—using prerogative powers, without having to put it to a vote in Parliament. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, known as CRaG, signed treaties must be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days. Parliament can raise objections but it cannot propose amendments and there is no requirement for a vote. Recommendations born of scrutiny are advisory, and not in the least bit binding. Evidence was provided to the International Agreements Committee in the other place last year. It showed just how outdated the UK’s treaty scrutiny system is, set against how trade arrangements have evolved and become more complicated. Modern trade deals now reach deep into domestic policy: they shape our food standards, our data rights and even the regulation of artificial intelligence. If Back-Bench MPs are shut out of the process, so too are the people we represent. Parliamentary scrutiny was demonstrably weak in the wake of the UK’s trade deals with Australia and New Zealand. The International Trade Committee condemned the Government’s approach, saying that it had “undermined” scrutiny. The Johnson Government did this by triggering the 21-sitting-day statutory period before Committees had received evidence or completed reports on the trade deal. This meant that Parliament had little information with which to assess the agreements. When the Australia deal was signed, Labour—then in opposition—rightly demanded a parliamentary vote. Now in government, it would do well to heed its own previous calls for proper scrutiny. In east and mid-Devon, farmers who I represent have been hit hard by the poorly negotiated trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which come on top of the planned changes to inheritance tax and the peremptory closure of the sustainable farming incentive. Even if a future UK-US trade deal upholds our food standards, west country farmers and others could still be undermined. The Government offer assurances about shutting out hormone-treated beef and chlorinated chicken, but concerns remain that the US could still flood the UK market with beef that is not hormone treated. The Government have assured us that there will be no compromise on environmental and animal welfare standards in the UK, but again, these assurances count for little if imports from overseas are not produced to the same environmental standards or with the same requirements for high animal welfare standards. The UK is already too reliant on imported food. Imports made up around 40% of the UK’s food supply in 2023. UK food self-sufficiency has already fallen sharply, from 78% in 1984 to just 60% today. There are those who say that some sectors will always fall victim to trade negotiations, because the Government must balance the demands of various industries, but some of the factors currently being discussed by our trade negotiators are cross-cutting, and that includes matters of digital trade and data. The US wants a digital-first deal. That would mean locking in rules that protect the interests of silicon valley, not the British public. It has already been speculated that the Government are considering reducing or scrapping the digital services tax, which would cut taxes for some of the wealthiest and most powerful American companies in the world at the expense of public service users in the UK. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasted that the tax raised £700 million in 2024-25—revenue that the Treasury can ill afford to forfeit at this time. Vice President J. D. Vance alleged in a speech at the Munich security conference that “old, entrenched interests” are “hiding behind ugly, Soviet-era words like ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation,’”. That brand of free speech pays little heed to facts. Vance may be representing some not altogether transparent interests himself. The US is pushing to overcome data localisation. That could allow US-based tech firms to centralise their data operations in the United States and rule out data storage in the UK. If that came about, it would weaken the protection for British citizens’ data, making it difficult to enforce UK privacy laws. Take as an example the contract that Palantir agreed with the NHS in 2023 to install its federated data system. If a US-UK trade deal restricted data localisation, it could allow NHS medical records to be exported to the US, handing Palantir the power to exploit the enormous commercial value of British citizens’ data. Although Palantir claims that it will only act as a processor of data, its business model is rooted in extracting value from data for commercial ends. With access to one of the world’s richest health datasets, Palantir could package insights and sell predictive analytic services to private healthcare providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies. Palantir’s co-founder Peter Thiel has called the NHS a system that “makes people sick”. He claims that freedom and democracy are no longer compatible. Parliament should have the means to ensure that Thiel’s understanding of freedom cannot bypass British democracy. This is not just about trade; it is about trust. The Leader of the Opposition should know: the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) was the Secretary of State for International Trade in 2023 when the Australia and New Zealand trade deals came into effect. Farming paid the price last time, and it could happen again—our digital freedoms could pay the price, too. My Bill is simple: it does not block a US deal or tie the Government’s hands; it requires that Parliament has a greater say. That is what democracy demands, and that is what the public expects. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Tim Farron, Calum Miller, Helen Morgan, Sarah Olney, Edward Morello and Richard Foord present the Bill. Richard Foord accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 228).

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today’s Daily Telegraph says that it has been reprimanded by the Independent Press Standards Organisation for reporting on remarks made in this Chamber by the then Communities Secretary Michael Gove. IPSO asserted that the Telegraph should not have reported without having first given a right of reply to the group that the remarks related to. Press freedom is a cornerstone of democracy, and for centuries the right to freely report on the proceedings of this House have been protected in British law. Those freedoms allowing the press to report without any hindrance or conditionality were secured as long ago as 1771 by John Wilkes. While IPSO may think it is being responsible, its reprimanding of the Telegraph undermines those fundamental rights. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, ask the House authorities to speak with the Independent Press Standards Organisation to remind it that the British press has an absolute right to report on what is said here in this Chamber without any hindrance or conditionality?

I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order and for notice of it. He has put his point on the record. Without commenting specifically on the IPSO ruling, because I understand that the issue was not straightforwardly about the reporting of what was said in this House, I do of course support the principle that being able to report on what is said here is extremely important.