Draft Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Tuesday 4th November 2025 General Committees

[The Chair]

Minister, would you be good enough to move the motion?

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025.

I have never been so kindly called by the Chair in Committee, Mr Stringer, so thank you very much. It is a genuine delight to sit under your chairmanship.

The draft regulations will authorise the enactment of sections 2(10)(b) and 2(11) of the Trade Act 2021 and extend the power under section 2(1) for a further period of five years. The proposed extension is a vital measure to ensure that the UK can remain flexible and proactive in managing its trade relations with important international partners. By extending the power, the Government will be able to pursue their ambitious trade agenda with minimal interruption.

To provide the Committee with a little more background, the Act was introduced by Liz Truss, but that does not mean it is all wrong. When it received Royal Assent back in 2021 under the previous Administration, the legislation granted the UK Government the authority to implement, through domestic law, trade agreements with countries that previously had such arrangements with the EU before Brexit. That is specified in section 2 of the Act. In practice, under the power in section 2(1), the Act enabled Ministers from the UK Government, as well as those from the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to make regulations via secondary legislation, specifically to address non-tariff elements of such agreements.

Rightful concerns about the scope of the power were expressed in Parliament at the time, including by the Labour party, resulting in the previous Government having to introduce several safeguards, including a sunset clause meaning that the power in section 2(1) will lapse at 11 pm on 31 December 2025 unless extended for up to five years by affirmative statutory instrument, which is what this Committee is about. We believe that such an extension is now necessary for our trade programme.

Any agreement that may have aspects implemented by that provision and that falls within the scope of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 will still be subject to the usual pre-ratification scrutiny, alongside the Government’s additional commitments to parliamentary transparency and oversight. All the original safeguards that we fought for at the time of the 2021 Act’s passage will remain in place. The draft regulations will have no effect on them.

We will continue to ensure that the power cannot be used to lower UK standards in areas such as the protection of human, animal or plant life, animal welfare, environmental protection, employment and labour rights, data protection, and safeguarding children and vulnerable adults online. Regulations made under section 2(1) of the 2021 Act that affect healthcare services must also uphold the principle of a publicly funded healthcare system. I cannot see a single Member on the Government side who was in the House when the 2021 legislation went through, so I realise I might be telling people ancient history.

Since coming into office, the Labour Government have made considerable progress in negotiating agreements that may require the continued use of section 2(1) beyond its expiry. It is crucial that we retain the ability to implement the outcomes of such negotiations. That is vital not only for businesses operating under new terms, but for maintaining the UK’s reputation as a dependable trading partner.

In practice, the extension could facilitate the implementation of forthcoming agreements with major partners, such as Switzerland, worth some £45 billion in trade, and Türkiye, worth some £28 billion. The agreements, once operational, are expected to deliver substantial economic benefits, open new markets, create jobs and stimulate growth across the UK. Without the power under section 2(1), delivering on our negotiated successes would be significantly more challenging. I am sure no Members of the House want to make that the case.

It is worth noting that the power under section 2(1) has already been used to implement agreements domestically, enabling the passage of statutory instruments on matters ranging from chemicals to roaming charges. The powers may also be needed for the ongoing management of existing arrangements, an example of which is to facilitate changes to the wholesale rates set out in an annexe to the European economic area and European Free Trade Association free trade agreement with the UK.

What I am trying to demonstrate to colleagues, I hope successfully, is the range of circumstances in which the power may be required. Extending section 2(1), therefore, is the most sensible course of action. A five-year extension is necessary to provide comprehensive coverage and to address any unforeseen issues that may arise during the ongoing administration of our trade agreements. Given the reasons that I have outlined and the assurances that I have made, I trust that the Committee will support the measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, argued for the benefits of Brexit—well, I have searched very high and I have searched very, very low for those. The previous Government even had a Minister for the benefits of Brexit, although he lost his seat, of course, at the last general election. I was a remainer and I remain a remainer, and we know that there has been significant damage to our ability to prosper because of what Brexit did to us. When I was at the World Trade Organisation last week, it was striking how many countries pointed to the number of UK businesses that are no longer trading in Europe because of the difficulties relating to Brexit.

I will say two things. First, we are where we are and we intend to exploit the ability that we have by virtue of not being in the European Union to its utmost, so as to secure trade deals wherever we can in the rest of the world. It may be that in some instances we are able to lead the way, such as on the free trade agreement that we have agreed with India, which is a significant success. That will point the way for the EU itself, in some cases, to be able to follow in our wake. It also gives us a seat at the WTO for the first time, which means that we can lead some of the conversations on reform of the WTO at the ministerial conference next March in Cameroon.

We will exploit the opportunity, but secondly, we must also ensure that, wherever possible, we secure the frictionless trade that was promised us by the shadow Minister and his ilk. We will try to secure that with the European Union because, frankly, any business in the UK that manages to find an export opportunity is more likely to be more resilient, succeed and grow into the future, which is precisely what we want for British businesses.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, sounded very grumpy. I always think, when a Liberal Democrat stands up, that they will be full of cheer and joy, and then they are always grumpy. I sympathise with some of the arguments that she makes about scrutiny, and I want to make sure, as Trade Minister, that we can provide whatever scrutiny is possible without so limiting our freedom of action to secure a deal with another country. It is a very careful balancing act and we need to get it right.

I was the Minister in the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office who took forward the clauses in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG. I stand by them. We will provide as many opportunities as we possibly can in relation to all the trade deals that we are going through at the moment for people to scrutinise, question and, if necessary, tell Ministers off. I will now give way for what will probably be another grumpy Liberal Democrat intervention.

[Sarah Olney]

I will ask this question in the brightest way I possibly can. The Minister referenced CRaG, which was passed in 2010. Does he still think that that is a sufficient level of scrutiny, given that we are now outside the EU and in a different trading environment to the one that we were in when those provisions were made?

[Chris Bryant]

We would obviously always want to keep that under review. As part of the CRaG process everything gets notified to the several Committees that might have an interest. When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee, it struck me that it was always at that moment that all the members would put their heads on the table—it was like the moment from “Absolutely Fabulous” when the accountant comes along.

There is a very strong argument that the whole of the House should take these trade issues far more seriously than we have in the past—though that is not me committing to changes in legislation, in case that is what the hon. Lady thought I was doing. She has started smiling again; it turns out I can put a smile on a Liberal Democrat face. However, I take the issue of how we consult extremely seriously. I know she is a trade envoy, and I still need to have a conversation with her about that.

Broadly speaking, everybody has said that they agree with the motion, so I should probably shut up.

Question put and agreed to.