Mark Prisk: Q We know that there is not a lot of detail—it is a framework—but is there something specific, such as an appeals process, that you want to be teased out in our deliberations?
Mark Prisk: Q Is that specifically the national interest?
Mark Prisk: Q Professor Winters, we have before us in part 2 a broad legal framework for a future remedies authority. In your view, is it robust enough? If not, what should we be thinking about amending?
Mark Prisk: May I ask DrQ Bartels about the remedies section, in part 2 of the Bill? In your view, how does the legal framework for remedies, particularly if a remedies authority is established, compare with others abroad? What are the strengths and weaknesses?
Mark Prisk: Does anyone want to add to that?
Mark Prisk: Q So you do not think that having Question Time and a Select Committee on trade is adequate.
Mark Prisk: Q Can I ask the witnesses about the Trade Remedies Authority? In your opinion, how effective do you think it could be, given that the Bill provides a framework? I appreciate there are lots of details to fill in later. How independent do you think that authority can be, given the way in which the Bill is currently drafted? I will start with FSB and work my way along.
Mark Prisk: Q Do you feel that there is sufficient distance between the Secretary of State and the TRA?
Mark Prisk: Q You are happy that the authority is sufficiently independent at this point?
Mark Prisk: I am trade envoy to the Nordic and Baltic nations, and to Brazil.
Mark Prisk: Q Mr Dearden, you say that Parliament should approve Government entering into negotiations. Given that the Government are talking to at least 100 countries at all times about trade, how would that work in practice?
Mark Prisk: Q That sounds nice, but how does that work in practice? At what point are Ministers, or indeed our ambassadors, allowed to talk to another country?
Mark Prisk: Q How do you define that?
Mark Prisk: Q Would that apply to memorandums of understanding or bilateral agreements? You are talking in generalities, and I am trying to find out the facts.
Mark Prisk: Q What kind of trade agreement do you think is a good one? Some people think they are just a playground for the super-rich.
Mark Prisk: Q So free trade agreements are a good thing?
Mark Prisk: My concern is not with the follow-on scrutiny of events that happened, but more the idea that somehow Parliament should require our existing teams in negotiations to seek approval before they start those conversations. That is my concern, but I will not delay the Committee any longer.
Mark Prisk: I think we are familiar with that!
Mark Prisk: What progress his Department has made on enabling the development of surplus public land for housing.
Mark Prisk: Some Labour councils, particularly in London, own hundreds of acres of surplus land. May I urge the new Minister to challenge those Labour authorities so that we can turn that land into family homes?