Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Swiss Confederation

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very good debate, and, not the first time, your Lordships’ House owes a considerable debt of gratitude to the EU Committee, and in particular to this sub-committee, for the hard work it has done in trying to bring together the arguments, the pluses and the minuses and the difficulties that we face in relation to this agreement. In addition, through this Motion today, my noble friend the chairman has been able to bring forward a much broader context within which we have to think harder about the processes and procedures we will need to have in place if we are not to repeat the mistakes that he has drawn to our attention today.

The regret in the Motion before us today is about the fact that the trade agreement that has been given to Parliament to consider does not have sufficient on services—all the arguments have been made clearly about that. However, in addition to the points about the specificity of services, is there not a slightly bigger worry behind all this? It must have been obvious to those negotiating on our behalf that, even though the figure of 80% of our economy may be different in practice, the relationship we have with Switzerland is based on a substantial volume of services activity.

If we have been unable to agree anything on services in this relationship, what does this say about our future ability to negotiate in a much broader context with all the countries of the EU, if we have to? What about the US and other countries for which our services, although valuable to us, may not stand in the same arrangement? Our failure to do it with a supportive friend—a country that has always been engaged with the UK—raises wider questions and leaves uncomfortable echoes for future arrangements.

When we look at the detail that the committee has pointed out, we see the omissions, changes, adjustments and disapplications. Although what we have today is a substantial document—my goodness it is; if those who have read it right through to the end are not concerned about how it distinguishes between the customs duties that will be applicable for gherkins, fresh or chilled, while aubergines go free, they are not doing their work, and I am glad someone else did it for me because I would have given up at that point, although it is quite late on—surely the issue here is that we are not getting what we think is the complete package. It is just a trade agreement, not the trade agreement that should be there. Therefore, my second worry is that we have been given something which is more to satisfy the vanity of those responsible for the department in relation to the promises given about the ability to do trade deals than it is about the specificity of our exporters and importers in relation to the country of Switzerland. That leaves me a little concerned.

The wider context of this is the question of scrutiny. Others have raised all the points and I do not need to go back through them again. We are still stuck trying to use 19th century resources and processes, relying on the royal prerogative, to try to take forward our treaties, when we need to replace them with a system that engages with the obvious interests in this House and the other place, the wider world and the devolved Administrations, to make sure that we can do something positive with our trade. That concept was debated at length on the Trade Bill, and I shall not go back over the issues. As has been pointed out, that Bill awaits Commons consideration of Lords amendments, but the irony is that if the Commons were willing to accept, at least in part, what has been put forward today—and we are certainly happy to talk about that—we would have a system that would set mandates, require Parliament to be kept abreast of developments and changes in the negotiations and recommend whether Parliament itself should ratify the end conclusion.

The Minister may reflect on the following question when she responds. If our EU Committee—or whatever committee structure is set up in future—had been given the chance to look at the mandate for this trade agreement and given periodic reviews of the discussions and debate and had the power to recommend whether it should be ratified, would we really be in such a mess on this issue as we are?

[The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for drawing the House’s attention to the UK-Switzerland continuity trade agreement. I add my thanks to him and the committee for their work. Just to read a synopsis of the report shows how much work has gone into this one agreement, so we owe a genuine debt of gratitude.

I also thank all your Lordships for contributing to this debate, which has been insightful and challenging. I welcome this debate and informed discussion about some of the details raised. As I understand it, the Motion did not engage the process under the CRaG Act, but I am keen to address the questions that have been put.

As for the committee’s detailed examination, I am thankful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for saying how helpful DIT and other officials have been. I will definitely take that back because that is how this has to work. The report created complements the explanatory materials we have, and will continue to, put alongside the agreements.

Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am again grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive introduction to this SI. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on a number of points and look forward to the responses to them.

I was puzzled by why the version of the SI that we have is not the corrected version, but I think time has probably defeated us on that. I look forward to seeing the final version when it comes out. Having to rerun this debate so quickly might be a little otiose, but it is always a pleasure to have these debates.

My question is slightly broader, and it may be better answered in a letter. The SI concerns the need to amend domestic and directly applicable EU legislation so that it continues to function in relation to the way in which these types of weapons are exported. I could not pick up from what the Minister said—this is why I suggest she might write to us—where this fits into the broader system we set up in early 2000 to try to make sure that exports of weapons as weapons are properly controlled. At that stage it involved three departments of state, but it presumably now involves four. Who has control of that? Are those systems fully operational, and is there any issue there? In a sense, I am confident that there is not, but there is growing concern about the way in which weapons have been used in certain areas. Rather than being used in genuine defence situations, they appear to have been used in internal conflicts and in other scenarios, which was never intended. Therefore, the problem might be that the dual-use material here might also fall into that category, and I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that the broad structure that is there to protect exporters but also to protect our own systems will apply. If so, exactly how will that work in practice?

Secondly, on the same theme, the Explanatory Memorandum makes relatively light work of the new pro forma licences that will be available in the UK to deal with these goods. I do not need a detailed response tonight but I would be interested to know a little more about how these will work in practice. “Pro forma” can be shorthand for not requesting a very detailed exposition from the exporter. I hope that that is not the case. I assume that pro forma means that the licences will be pre-printed and relatively easy to fill in, but I would be grateful to have confirmation of that. What is the system? Where do they go? What are we looking for here? Are these materials are being created under a very deep cut through the system? Will the system track back over rules of origin? Will we be clear where they originated from and where their final destination is likely to be? Presumably all those things will be in a system at some point. Will they be clearly written up and submitted properly, and, if so, to whom, and will they cover all the points that I have made?

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I shall try to address the questions directly. Turning to the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, I can confirm that controls will apply to cyber capability materials when they are exported to the Isle of Man.

Cat and Dog Fur (Control of Import, Export and Placing on the Market) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister brought forward a well-argued and brief case, and there is no need for us to go over much of the ground here. This is a very straightforward translation across of an existing power, and it is obviously necessary. These bans are only there because of public indignation and moral outcry about the trade in fur products, with particular reference to cats and dogs in this case.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, there is a wider context, and it would be helpful to have some sense of where this lies in the thinking on the broader trade in live puppies—and presumably cats—which are brought in to the great distress of the animals concerned, with poor standards of veterinary care and often with misleading information about what breeds they are and their likely state of health. There is also the broader question about how these issues are to be policed.

Mention is made in the commentary around this statutory instrument that determining the quality of the fur is complicated by the fact that it is sometimes quite difficult to track exactly what it is and where it has come from. More work needs to be done on that, and I wonder whether more effort will be placed on this now that the matter is being brought into direct control from the UK. That broader question also leads to the point about whether resources are available to make sure that it is properly policed. Presumably this is a trading standards issue. Trading standards is often asked to take on additional burdens and rarely given additional resources, since its funding comes from local authorities. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that there will be adequate resources for this work to be carried out.

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I will try to address a number of the concerns raised. The noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Purvis of Tweed, both mentioned a broader, more extensive ban. There may be time another day to talk about extending the ban. There have been no challenges to this ban under WTO rules. Our position is that that is beyond the scope of this statutory instrument, and therefore it is not a subject for discussion today.

There is a power to derogate in the current regulations. Because we are required only to correct technical deficiencies and because it exists, removing it would amount to more than correcting a technical deficiency. The power is there so that it is appropriate to bestow it on the UK. But let me be absolutely clear here on the Floor of the House—and this is why I am not going to address the other detailed questions of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—that the Government have no plans to use that power. As the noble Lord said, the derogation is for education and taxidermy. We have no plans to make use of that power.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about the use of specific analytical methods. The requirement to report was to the Commission. We no longer need to do that, because we can determine what analytical methods we use. As the UK uses DNA-based methodology, we consider that to be the most appropriate overall and expect to continue to use it.

On the agreement of the devolved Administrations, it is recorded in the Explanatory Memorandum to the 2008 regulations on this subject that this is a reserved matter. The international trade regulation falls within the general reservation for international affairs set out in the Scotland Act 1998. We have shared these regulations with the devolved Administrations in draft, and, in practical terms, we are confident that there is consensus across the UK on the desirability of maintaining the ban.

I can confirm to both noble Lords who have spoken that we expect these regulations to continue to be rigorously enforced. HMRC will continue its role. It inspects consignments of fur at the point of entry into or exit from the UK, and on retail premises, to ensure they do not contain any cat or dog fur. It will retain its existing power to seize goods it considers to be in breach. It can also bring criminal proceedings against any persons found to have breached the prohibitions.

With that, I hope I have addressed the noble Lords’ questions.

Protecting Against the Effects of the Extraterritorial Application of Third Country Legislation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions in this short but useful debate. I hope I have been clear about the Government’s commitment to the continuation of these regulations. To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, about why we are doing this, we believe that if we do not retain and amend this legislation, we will no longer be able to offer protection to UK businesses from the harmful effects we consider to be illegal under international law. We would in effect be acknowledging the superiority of the sanctions regime of a third country relative to our own. Successive Governments since the 1980s have agreed that this is unacceptable and our Government is no exception.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also highlighted some of the real challenges of these regulations. Yes, they provide protection, but there is also a challenge for companies who find themselves in that spot between being blocked from complying and failing to comply, and therefore being in breach of sanctions. This instrument is not a perfect solution. In application it is probably to be used more as a tool to dissuade companies and individuals from complying with extraterritorial sanctions. In terms of usage, only about 14 applications have been received by the Commission. I hope that answers the hard point of the questions.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked some questions about the application process for the exemptions. At the moment businesses apply to the European Commission for exemptions; we will try to make that a bit more straightforward by providing a dedicated mailbox for our businesses to apply for exemptions once the SI enters into force. We hope that that will be a much more readily accessible approach.

On the question of when guidance will be published, over the coming months we will start with the EU guidance and update it to make sure that it complies with the UK context.

In terms of the devolved Administrations, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, acknowledged that this is a reserved power. We have kept the devolved Administrations informed of the policy on this matter and have sent them the Explanatory Memorandum. In terms of criminal proceedings in Scotland, this has been permitted under the 1996 order, so I hope that that is relatively straightforward.

My final response is to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. He asked how this fits in with current foreign policy with regard to Iran in particular. There are sanctions that we support against Iran. However, as I have said before to the House, we believe that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best plan to make sure that we prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. We believe that protecting trade with Iran, supported by this blocking regulation, is important to show that we are committed to legitimate trading with Iran. We are firm believers in the importance of the JCPOA.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow and I am grateful to her for giving way. I was trying to make a slightly different point, which is not the broader case about the JCPOA but on the British national currently held in detention in Iran for whom diplomatic efforts have been made to create a major issue with Iran. I do not see how this instrument helps. The point I was trying to make is that other issues are at play here.

[Baroness Fairhead]

I do not deny that other issues are at play. For the purpose of this debate, the question is whether the blocking regulation supports our approach to the JCPOA, and I think it absolutely does.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank those who have supported me in bringing forward this amendment. Its history is that we debated it in Committee and again on Report, and have had a number of discussions on the issues it raised. The original concern was that in the other place an amendment was moved to the original Bill to insert the European Medicines Agency as a body with which the Government should seek to make arrangements in the event of a no-deal exit. The feeling was that that was rather too narrow in scope, and did not raise the wider issues about which other bodies might be appropriate for consideration. After discussion, we therefore came up with the proposal represented in Amendment 7. The second version of it on Report included a slightly longer list, but I have been persuaded that we should restrict the amendment to the list currently before your Lordships’ House. I would be grateful if it could be considered. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, the Government are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who has worked tirelessly and constructively to find common ground between what he is aiming to achieve with this amendment and a position the Government can support.

As I said on Report on this issue on 13 March, the Government recognise that a deep and special relationship with the EU is likely to involve close co-operation with certain EU agencies and bodies. The Government also recognise that a close partnership with an EU body or agency may help to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade. That is why we will carefully consider how to develop such partnerships within the breadth of our future relationship with the EU.

There are six bodies listed in this amendment: the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Maritime Safety Agency and the two European networks of transmission system operators. The Government and the EU have already agreed, as expressed in the political declaration, to explore future co-operation with all of them.

The Government are working to find the best arrangement for the UK regarding other EU agencies and bodies. The decision to seek co-operation with an EU agency or body must be made only after careful consideration, bearing in mind the context of the UK’s overall aims for the future relationship and negotiations with the EU. The future of our relationship with EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, and EUIPO, the European Union Intellectual Property Office, will be shaped by forthcoming UK-EU negotiations.

As we negotiate our future relationship with the EU, the Government are determined to agree ambitious provisions to help businesses protect their intellectual property rights. Indeed, in the political declaration, the UK and the EU commit to establishing,

“a mechanism for cooperation and exchange of information on intellectual property issues of mutual interest”.

In this regard, the UK would seek an appropriate level of co-operation with the EU and relevant agencies, such as the EUIPO.

The UK has a long tradition of close collaboration with EFSA, which we greatly value and hope to continue in the future. We recognise the important work of EFSA in providing scientific advice and guidance, and believe it would be mutually beneficial for the EU and UK to continue to co-operate in the sharing of knowledge and information. A close relationship between EFSA and the UK would support the joint ambitions of the EU and the UK for food and feed safety. However, it would be unwise to stipulate in UK law exactly how we want to co-operate with the EU in these areas, given the implications it could have for the wider balance of rights and obligations we are seeking for the future.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, therefore reflects the position set out in the political declaration. His constructive approach to this issue exemplifies the positive tone of many of the debates and meetings we have had with a great number of your Lordships over the last few weeks. The Government are therefore content to support this amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind words and, more importantly, for accepting the amendment as drafted. I commend the amendment to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I request the indulgence of the House to say a few words to express my sincere gratitude. I begin by thanking all those who have participated in our debates on this Bill. As has already been mentioned, this is the first Bill I have steered through your Lordships’ House. It has been a rewarding and constructive—although, I have to confess, at times challenging—experience. Your Lordships have spoken eloquently and with great knowledge about the changes you thought necessary to improve key provisions of this Bill—for example, the need for post-implementation assessment of continuity trade agreements, maintaining UK levels of protection when the power in Clause 2 is used, and clarifying the scope of the Clause 2 power in relation to civil penalties. The Government listened, agreed and responded, and I have no doubt whatever that this Bill is improved as a result. A further important change was the confirmation that the chair of the TRA would be subject to a pre-commencement hearing by the International Trade Committee.

I turn to individual contributions, starting with my noble friends Lord Bates and Lord Younger. They have been towers of strength, their support has been invaluable, and I am hugely in their debt. I also pay particular respect to the noble Lords who have set aside some of their valuable time over the past few weeks to meet me and my colleagues and discuss these important issues, so that together we could ensure that the Bill reflected the genuine intent of this House. I thank in particular the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Lord Grantchester; and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I also thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Lansley, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Wilson of Dinton and Lord Beith, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Henig, Lady Brown of Cambridge and Lady Deech, and the noble Earl, the Earl of Kinnoull, for their constructive approach. In particular, I single out the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his tireless efforts and his contribution to achieving a better Bill. My noble friend Lady McIntosh has already referred to his charm and graciousness; I would add his effectiveness and his integrity.

This has been very much a team effort. Behind the scenes, the extraordinary Bill team have put in an unbelievable amount of effort. My thanks go to them, to my private office, and to all officials who have provided support. They have taken on an exceptional workload and have demonstrated huge expertise and commitment—but I have to give a special award to the Bill manager, Suzanne Greaves. She has been spectacular. Finally, I thank the doorkeepers, the clerks and all the staff, because their patience and professionalism has been unwavering.

To conclude, I have now seen at first hand the value that I have long known that this House adds to the legislative process. There may be aspects of the Bill as it leaves this place with which the Government do not agree, but I really believe that your Lordships can be justly proud, and we should all be proud, of the contribution made here to this important piece of legislation. I am immensely grateful to you all.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, it usually falls to me to embarrass Ministers, not the other way round. I felt myself blush just then, and I hope it was not caught too closely on television—but I thank the Minister very much indeed for her comments.

Leading on a Bill in your Lordships’ House, whether in a government position or in opposition, is an honour and a privilege—but those who have done it before will know what I mean when I say that it can take over your life. It is not just the bad dreams and the nightmares of waking up and thinking, “Did I actually say that?” or “Did I forget that amendment?”; it is all the other work that goes with it: meetings with third parties who feel that they should participate in the Bill, and in our case—this may not be true of the Government—talking to our colleagues in the Commons, and to other groups in this House that have to be involved. It is well known that it is simply not possible to improve a Bill unless those of all parties, and none, join together to see what the public interest requires.

There are also meetings with the clerks, and Back-Bench liaison on our side, and voting strategy meetings. There is a lot going on, and that does not get any less as we come towards the end of the process. It gets to the point where you eat, sleep and dream the Bill. That is fine when it takes six weeks, but it is not fine if it takes six months, as this Bill has done, to get through to its final process.

There are pluses too. Working on a Bill means working intensively with colleagues. I do not just mean my noble friends Lord Grantchester and Lord McNicol, and our extraordinarily hard-working legislative assistant Ben Wood; it also means working with the Bill team. I agree that all credit is due to Suzanne Greaves and her team, because they have been fantastic to us as well as to Ministers, giving us information and responding, to a very high standard, to often ridiculous requests at very short notice. Ministers, including the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, have been excellent at the Dispatch Box, both in what they have said but also in saying it very quickly. That is, I believe, often the hallmark of a good Minister.

I am sure I speak for the whole House when I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, on what is, extraordinarily, her first Bill. She has it brought it to the House with consummate skill and considerable confidence. She ensured that we met regularly outside the Chamber for the meetings we have referred to, which were robust but extremely good and fruitful. We made progress and we were given all the information we needed.

We did not always agree—the Minister has acknowledged that—but where we differed, we did so only after all avenues for compromise had been explored and we proceeded on the basis of mutual respect for each other’s point of view. In doing that, we upheld the best standards of this House.

Agreement Establishing an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I suppose this is in the nature of an experiment. This is the first time we have had an opportunity to go into detail about the new world that beckons, whichever side of the Brexit divide one is on. At some point in the future, whether sooner or later, the UK will certainly be faced with making a very large number of these treaties. We need to get used to wading through them and investigating in detail.

I had only a short time to go through the agreements on the Order Paper, but I was left reeling, not only from the pages that dealt with the individual tariff lines—I know I will have to do more work on these because of the Government’s announcement today. Even so, it was a pretty scary moment to try to realise exactly what was going on there, equally so to recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that a modern trade agreement is not just about widgets and physical objects but trade in services, attitudes, approaches, commitments to work together, future developments—all sorts of areas. It is a very complex area. I do not think one quite has a sense of how that works in practice until one reads the raw text.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right to ask us to dwell on how the process works. Obviously, the committee’s work is exemplary in this way. It may have been short of time and the necessary expertise, but it certainly managed to get access to quite a lot of information. It is full of information that would be very difficult to get if one did not have access to our expert support. It is very useful to give an initial sense of what we are really up against and to take the benefit of those who have gone before us. I do not think there is much more, other than to listen to the Minister’s response, which I am sure will be very fair and cover all the ground.

I want to flag up that I will be looking at these with one particular issue—investment—in mind. That should not be a surprise, since I have been raising this issue over all these trade agreements over a period of time. I looked through the agreements on the Order Paper today and could only find one reference to investment in Article 39 of the agreement establishing an economic partnership agreement between eastern and southern African states and the UK. Is this the only one with an investment chapter in it? Will the noble Baroness comment on whether that is a trend or just the way things are? I probably know the answer to that.

Given that this one has an investment chapter in it, what is the meaning behind paragraph 1(e) of Article 39? It says that the parties recognise the importance of investment and the objectives in this case are to,

“develop a legal framework that promotes investment by both Parties, with a view to promoting and protecting investment and work towards harmonised and simplified procedures and administrative practices”.

Does this mean motherhood and apple pie, or is it code for some new system of secret courts meeting in secret locations and taking decisions on investment with an adverse effect on the political and social economy of the countries concerned? I may have extended slightly to make my point, but I would be grateful for a response.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all of your Lordships who have contributed to this debate for the many insightful points raised and the informed speeches made. I join my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe in commending the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for raising what is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, agreed, a very important subject. It is critical that we transition these three trade agreements, which cover countries accounting for £3.5 billion of our trade.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has raised a concern with the scrutiny processes with respect to these continuity agreements. Let me reiterate what has already been done on scrutiny to date. For the sake of clarity, these are existing EU trade agreements that we are transitioning to bilateral agreements between the UK and third countries. Therefore, they have already been subject to a scrutiny process at EU level, and this was overseen in our Parliament by our EU Select Committees. Ratifying these agreements means that we can provide assurance to business in the UK and third countries that there will be trade continuity in any EU exit scenario.

However, we hear the noble Lord’s concerns that Parliament should have appropriate opportunities for scrutiny, and it is absolutely an objective of the Government that Parliament is afforded these opportunities. That is why the Government agreed to go over and above the requirements as laid out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act by setting out in a report to Parliament details of any significant trade-related differences between the UK and EU free trade agreements, and explanations for the changes. These reports must be published 10 days before implementing regulations are laid under the Trade Bill or before ratification, whichever is earlier. Indeed, I will shortly take the House through a precis of the three agreements and the reports that were laid alongside the texts. I hope this will demonstrate the detail that they include to those who have not had the opportunity to go through them, and will reassure the House about our approach to transparency.

I start with the UK-Chile agreement, which reproduces the effects of the EU-Chile agreement as closely as possible, making only technical changes to ensure that the agreement can continue to operate between the UK and Chile. It means that our businesses can, for example, continue to sell cars to Chile on existing terms. In fact, according to HMRC data estimates, 2,400 VAT-registered businesses in the UK exported to Chile in 2017 alone. Trade in goods and services between the UK and Chile was £1.8 billion in 2017—the top goods imported from Chile being edible fruit and nuts, beverages, spirits and vinegar, while our key exports to Chile were machinery and mechanical appliances.

In transitioning the agreement, the tariff-rate quotas in the UK-Chile agreement have been resized from the original EU-Chile ones to reflect that the UK is a smaller import and export market than the EU 28. These quotas were agreed following examination of a range of evidence including historical usage data and trade flow data.

I turn now to rules of origin. When the UK leaves the EU, the designation of UK exports will shift from EU-originating to UK-originating. To ensure maximum continuity for business, the UK-Chile agreement provides that EU materials can continue to be recognised in UK and Chilean exports to one another. Furthermore, EU processing can be recognised in UK exports to Chile.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised an important issue on where the new agreement differs from the original, and that is with regard to parliamentary committees. The original EU-Chile agreement established an association parliamentary committee as a forum for members of the European Parliament and the Chilean National Congress to meet and exchange views. The EU-Chile committee may, for example, make recommendations to the EU-Chile Association Council. Given the principle of continuity, it has been our intention to replicate the institutional structures of the original EU-Chile agreement where possible. With respect to the association parliamentary committee, we did not consider it appropriate to bind Parliament to this commitment without prior consultation. We have therefore agreed treaty text which reserves the right of UK parliamentarians to their position until such consultations have been concluded. The association council provides a mechanism that allows for the establishment of the association parliamentary committee at the request of the parties. If Parliament considers that it wants this committee to be set up, then DIT officials will work with Chilean counterparts to seek to establish this committee at the earliest possible opportunity.

Turning to the economic partnership agreement between eastern and southern Africa countries and the UK, this maintains the effects of the ESA-EU EPA in a bilateral context. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, reiterated, EPAs are asymmetric in favour of developing countries and are therefore critically important to their progress. The UK signed the agreement on 31 January with Mauritius, Seychelles and Zimbabwe, and we expect Madagascar and Comoros to sign in the near future.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I am particularly delighted to be at the Dispatch Box to answer the inaugural commencement amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

We have had extensive debates on the Trade Bill, during which I believe all sides have acknowledged the importance of its provisions. I do not believe that this House disagrees with the underlying principles of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out, it is not just for a no-deal situation; it is to cover whatever the outcome of the negotiations with the EU might be. I hope and trust that your Lordships will acknowledge the need for any responsible Government to bring forward these provisions.

The Trade Bill covers four important areas for consumers and businesses. This House has debated them and is well rehearsed in them, and I do not propose to repeat the key ones in detail here today. The fundamental point which I hope your Lordships will consider carefully is that, if we do not enact this Bill in a timely fashion, that will have a direct and adverse impact not just on consumers but on businesses.

I am very aware that there are activities elsewhere at this hour that might have a bearing on this debate, but I remind noble Lords of the comment of my noble friend Lord Lansley that, if passed, this amendment could have very serious consequences for the UK. If a vote is passed in the other place ruling out no deal but no Motion is approved in favour of a withdrawal agreement, the default position at law is that the UK will leave the EU at 11 pm on 29 March. As a number of your Lordships have said, it would be an accidental no deal; it is not what the Government want, which is to have a deal. However, if that happens, the effect of the amendment would be to prevent the commencement of the substantive provisions of this Bill, and I do not believe that that is the intention of the noble Lords who are proposing it. Nevertheless, that is what would happen. The UK would leave the EU without a deal and without any of the protections offered by the Bill. I do not believe that anyone wants to see that.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, commented that the amendment would rule out an accidental no deal. We do not believe that it would; it would merely have the unintended consequence that, if there were to be an accidental no deal, the provisions would be prevented from coming into force. If the other place voted tonight in favour of no deal, the requirements in paragraph (b) proposed in the amendment would have been met. This would mean that the precondition for commencement would be satisfied, so the amendment would be rendered redundant by events.

Furthermore, as far as I am aware, no business groups or other representative organisations have indicated support for the amendment. In fact, many support the need to enact these provisions. For example, the CBI has stated that it remains,

“strongly supportive of the initiative to set up a Trade Remedies Authority”.

Similarly, the British Ceramic Confederation has stated:

“It is clear that we need a TRA, and it is certainly welcome that the Bill establishes one”.


We have heard cross-party support for continuity in both Houses of Parliament, and the International Trade Select Committee also confirmed that it struggled to find a witness who would speak against it.

I acknowledge, and understand, that passions and views are strongly held about whether this country should remain a member of the EU or leave. However, this should not distract from the core role of Parliament and of your Lordships’ House to ensure the best for this country’s people and businesses. No matter how strongly your Lordships feel about these issues, ultimately it must be a matter for the elected representatives in the other place to make a decision about the steps this country takes at this important moment in our nation’s history. This should not distract us from this Bill’s content, the importance of these provisions and the desire of consumers and businesses to see these vital provisions enacted.

During scrutiny of this Bill, the House has shown itself at its best, holding the Government to account and working with the Government to improve the legislation. However, for the reasons I have stated, we do not feel that there is a call for this amendment. I would therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, feels able to withdraw instead of pressing to a vote.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the Minister for responding as she has done. I pay tribute to her and her team for the considerable work they have done in trying to make sure that we get through this Bill and try to iron out the differences between us.

I think we will disagree on this. I have received information that the other place has voted 312 to 308 against a no-deal exit. We at least have that information in our hand as we think further about how this amendment might play out.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for whom I have a great respect and whose knowledge and experience have been very useful to the Committee and have informed our debates throughout the process of this Bill, we have already joined the GPA. That has gone through. The regulation-making power in the Bill is to make regulations about future changes in the GPA, not about the GPA itself. I disagree with him that we need this at this time. It may be necessary in future, but there may be other opportunities.

As has already been said, most of the establishing framework for the TRA is in another Bill already in place. As the Minister said, the Government have already introduced the regulations that give effect to the powers necessary for that to operate effectively. They are already through the House. The actual power in this Bill is not necessary. Many of its powers are not. They were appropriate earlier but not so now. I do not think we are talking about the substance of this. In some senses, this is a bit of a wake-up call to the Government, as well as a broader message to the wider community. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 6th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we have had a very good debate on an important and long-lasting topic which we need to draw to some form of conclusion. We have before us two amendments that cover the ground very admirably, although their approaches are rather different. Indeed, the essence of what we are trying to get at may become a little masked in the timing. That last exchange is a good example of the way in which aspiration, interests and enthusiasm can sometimes lead us to a position where the drafting does not support where we are trying to go to.

We should be clear that there is support around the House for putting into the Bill at an appropriate place a clear and unambiguous statement which reiterates what the Government have said on a number of occasions—and we will probably hear again in a few minutes when the Minister responds—that they are committed to not lowering domestic standards in the EU agreements that are transitioning into bilateral agreements or in any future trade agreements that they wish us to enter into. If we can hold on to that and find the appropriate words rather than the ones before us, which need to be merged if we are to get the best out of this, we might make a way forward. I hope the Minister will give us hope that there will be the opportunity for further meetings and discussions on this issue. It is worth trying to go the extra mile to get us to a point where, by Third Reading, we have an agreed procedure.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was right to try to drill down into some of the points that may need to be bottomed out. I will not repeat where there are difficulties but simply acknowledge that we need to be clear about whose standards we are talking about, where they are to be found in current statute, how they apply to UK interests and how they are limited in what they might say to any future Government about third-party Government arrangements, which are clearly not right.

Another point is to pick up how the WTO and other international agreements and treaties that we make covering the list in subsection (5B)(a) to (g) would fit best in a statutory form. That is the way that we need to go. I therefore hope that all parties will accept that this is not the time to force through either of these amendments but to come forward with an agreed position, if we can, in time for Third Reading.

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I appreciate the attention that this House has paid to the vitally important issue of standards at each of the Bill’s stages, and for the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Henig, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Brown of Cambridge, and by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I also thank their Lordships for the productive meetings that we have had on the subject.

The Government, like your Lordships, do not want and do not intend the strong environmental protection, food safety, and animal welfare standards that the UK is proud of to be lowered once we leave the EU. As I mentioned in Committee, the Prime Minister and Ministers from across government, including Defra and DIT, have made public commitments to the maintenance of the current protections and offered many assurances that we will not lower these rigorous levels of protection in order to secure trade deals.

Let us not forget that, first and foremost, our policy is one of continuity. We seek to carry over the effect of the existing EU agreements. Our trade continuity programme is rooted in our desire to deliver consistency to businesses and consumers as we leave the EU. This approach has been widely endorsed by partner countries, businesses and Parliament. The International Trade Select Committee report in March 2018, for example, stated:

“Almost no one who contributed to our inquiry suggested that the Government’s policy objective of seeking continuity was the wrong one”.


In relation to standards, I can confirm that, under the provisions of the EU withdrawal Act, we will start at a point of maintaining the high standards that we have benefited from as an EU member. This provides us with a strong basis to build on in future. This includes those provisions that the House will be aware of on chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef, which will not be able to enter the UK market. The UK has already transposed the relevant EU Council directive into UK law prohibiting the use of artificial growth hormones in both domestic production and imported products. This is now UK law. No products, other than potable water, are approved in the EU to decontaminate poultry carcasses, and this will still be the case in the UK when we leave the EU. EU food safety provisions will come across through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, where they will be enshrined in UK law.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised an issue about the unlimited duration of this clause. I would just like to clarify that there is a sunset clause for this power: unless it is extended by both Houses of Parliament, it will expire three years after exit day. That is set out in Clause 2(7).

I turn to the issue of reducing standards in future trade agreements. Our future trade agreements provide us with the greatest opportunities for the UK to develop its global trading position. The demand for UK goods, as I have seen first-hand, is based heavily on our outstanding reputation for quality and the British mark of excellence. The Government have no intention of harming this reputation. Indeed, we intend, as a minimum, to maintain the standards that we currently have, which are set out in our primary and subordinate legislation, and the high standards that we have led on maintaining as a member of the EU. We will continue to retain these as part of the retention of EU legislation, as we exit the EU, through the EU withdrawal Act. The desire to maintain the high levels of standards that we enjoy in the UK is therefore at the heart of the Government of this country and, more than not planning to reduce those standards, we have a strong policy of ensuring that those standards are maintained.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised a point about the WTO schedules and the fact that we are already suggesting that we might change them. I want to clarify that our WTO schedules will not change. These set out the maximum tariffs that the UK would impose. The UK, like any country, remains free to impose lower tariffs than those set down if it so chooses.

On Amendment 3, I thank the noble Lords for their amendment and for my conversations with them on this important issue. I fully understand the sentiment with which the amendment is laid and have already reiterated in my response the Government’s strong commitment to maintaining standards as we leave the EU. However, we feel that the amendment as currently drafted is problematic for a number of reasons.

First, the amendment comes with some uncertainties as to its scope. The term “standards” does not have a single legal definition which can easily be called upon. Any legislative commitment not to lower standards would need to make crystal clear what regulations are in scope. This amendment does not, and instead requires the Government to report against an open-ended list of potentially relevant standards, as my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier highlighted. This would require the establishment of a process to determine what constitutes “standards”, not only in each of the listed groups of standards but beyond. Outcomes of this process could then be easily questioned in a court and, until a court ruled on the matter, they would simply be the Government’s own assessment rather than legal certainties.

Secondly, on the notion of “reducing” standards, how the Government would prove that they were or were not reducing them would be problematic. This contains a degree of subjectivity, which would create considerable legal uncertainty if it were to be added to the Bill. Again, the term “standards” can mean a voluntary, best-practice way of doing something. Standards are often not set by Governments but developed by consensus among relevant stakeholders. Of course, there are minimum levels of safety, quality and environmental protection—for example, where voluntary approaches are not effective. These rules and regulations are mandatory and enshrined in our laws, which, of course, are subject to parliamentary approval.

We sincerely believe that the best way to influence standards in other countries is to forge strong trading relationships where we can positively influence those countries through the reputation of UK businesses. Through such relationships, we can insist on the proper treatment of workers and their rights, so that UK consumers are assured that the products they buy from reputable UK businesses are from suppliers whose practices those businesses have assured. In order to achieve that, we need to have trade agreements in place.

On human rights, which are referred to in paragraph (g) of the amendment, noble Lords will recall that the Government have already reaffirmed that the UK is a signatory to the ECHR and will continue to uphold human rights in the UK under the Human Rights Act. The Clause 2 power cannot be used to amend the Human Rights Act, and it would be unlawful for any regulation under the Trade Bill to be incompatible with the rights enshrined in the ECHR.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

I suggest that this matter cannot be brought back on the second day, because this is an amendment to Clause 2, which we will have passed. Given that the noble Baroness, fairly and properly, has accepted that what she has heard today requires further discussion, and that the Government may wish to consider further this matter after they have met with noble and noble and learned Lords who are concerned about this, surely the way to proceed is for the Government to accept that it is appropriate for this matter to be raised again at Third Reading to see whether any progress can be made.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we are in a very similar situation to where we were in an earlier debate. Clearly there is an issue which needs to be resolved between the Minister and those who feel strongly about it. She is putting the mover of the amendment in a difficult position, because the only right thing to do at this stage is to test the opinion of the House, and I am sure that that is not where we need to go on this. We need to give the Minister time to reflect on the issues and to be convinced, if she has to be convinced, by further points made, and, if necessary, to come back at Third Reading. That is not an onerous consideration.

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I agree with that position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, we have had very fruitful discussions and come quite a long way on this point. All I can say is that I would be happy to discuss it further but I cannot guarantee to come back at Third Reading with any changes. On that basis, the noble Lord will have to decide how he chooses to treat his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The Minister is certainly very brave to take on a former Lord Chancellor in his pomp. I agree with the noble and learned Lord. The House has a very strong view about this and would like to see it back, but I am stuck with the procedural arrangements, as far as I understand them. I cannot amend the amendment before the House at the moment. I assume that the only way to do this would be to vote it through—if the House will agree to its view being tested—and hope that we can bring it back either through ping-pong or in some other way. I give way to the noble and learned Lord to see if he has inspiration of his own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for tabling this amendment. I will make some statements about why we are much more supportive of ISDSs and these dispute resolutions. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that, as this House is aware, the Trade Bill is not intended to cover future free trade agreements or the investment policies associated with them. As a result, Clause 2 allows the Government to change domestic law where necessary to ensure that these continuity agreements can operate in a UK context. To be clear, no powers in the Trade Bill will be used to implement investment protection provisions, because such provisions in trade agreements do not require legislation.

I want to comment about investment protection provisions more generally because I believe they have a place. According to UNCTAD, foreign direct investment in 2017 was around $30.8 trillion. There are around 3,000 international investment agreements, most of which include these sorts of provisions. They have been going for over 40 years and, to date, only 855 claims have ever been completed. This means that, for the vast majority of investment agreements, no claims have been made. Furthermore, states have won more claims than investors—37% to 28%—with the rest either settled or discontinued. This does not suggest a bias in favour of investors and, I hope, offers a bit of comfort.

I understand the concerns that have been raised in the past, but our assertion is that many have been overstated. Often, ISDS mechanisms are attacked because they seem able to force a Government to regulate in a particular way in the public interest. However, they do not infringe on that right to regulate. The right of Governments to regulate is protected in international law. I reassure the noble Lord that the threat of potential claims has never affected the UK Government’s legislative programmes. We have more than 90 agreements with these clauses, as the noble Lord said. We have never had a successful claim made against us.

The amendment would require investment disputes to be heard by UK courts or tribunals in all instances, which has the potential to undermine what we think has been quite an effective process—an internationally accepted framework which has successfully supported our investors worldwide. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned new concepts, including the multilateral trading court. I agree with him that that is just one of a number of concepts. Work is at an early stage internationally. Future negotiations should take place in a forum where states will be fully involved to ensure that the system delivers. I fully agree with the noble Lord on that. We support the objectives of ensuring fair outcomes of claims, high ethical standards for arbitrators and increased transparency, which is another of the points that have been held against the previous systems. We have pushed hard for greater transparency.

As the noble Lord is aware, we in the UK expect other countries to treat our businesses operating abroad as we treat their investors in the UK. Our concern is that if the amendment were passed, it would be likely that any future partners would also insist on reciprocal provisions. That would mean that any disputes brought by UK investors against a host state would be required to be heard in its national court. This has the potential to be to the disadvantage of our investors.

The amendment could also create a precedent by encouraging some existing bilateral investment treaty partners to seek amendments with the UK to ensure consistency. UK investors—I am sure we all agree—can make incredible contributions to the countries in which they invest, including in hospitals, schools and other infrastructure. Potentially, this amendment could lead to decisions by UK investors to not invest. These countries would therefore not benefit; indeed, our assertion is that countries could be damaged in investment terms. I also ask noble Lords to note that, while international arbitration has been a valuable tool for our investors—who, in some cases, have been subject to egregious treatment by local Governments—we have never been successfully sued.

Most of our future negotiating partners who favour the inclusion of investment protection and ISDS would expect this to include some form of dispute resolution through a means that the international community is trying to work out. Securing agreement on an alternative domestic process could lead to the UK having to accept an unwelcome trade-off.

Additionally, as I highlighted at the start of my comments, the Trade Bill is not intended to deal with future free trade agreements. Therefore, we do not propose coming back with any changes on this at Third Reading. I am very happy to have discussions with the noble Lord outside the Chamber, but in respect of the true aims of this Bill and the systems already in place to resolve those disputes, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am very grateful to the Minister for her full response. I look forward to reading it in Hansard. I will take her up on her offer of further discussions, but at this stage, I think the best thing is to withdraw the amendment.

Trade Agreements

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 14th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating as a Statement the Answer to the UQ in the other place yesterday. The mystery which this Statement is supposed to address is why there is such secrecy about progress on the rollover of existing EU FTAs. It was always going to be much harder than was ever promised; it was always going to take time, and it has; and, as the Minister said, it was always going to be up to the last minute, so we should not be surprised by anything that has been leaked to the papers. Having said that, it is good to see the leaked report because it gives some clarity to what is otherwise a rather obscure situation.

If the Minister will forgive the comment, the Statement still has Micawberish undertones. It has been clear for many months that, at best, only a very small number of agreements will be in force if we leave without a deal on 29 March. It is also becoming clearer that the focus on these 40 EU FTAs with 70 or so countries is a bit of a distraction. Even counting the Japan agreement that recently came into force, although it takes a number of years to have its full effect, we are talking about 16% of our overall gross imports and about the same—16.5%—of our gross exports, so it is a small proportion of our overall trade.

If you go a bit further into these EU FTAs, over 80% of their value is provided by some six of them. Obviously, they are important but they are not that important, particularly when you go further into what they comprise. The much-vaunted Swiss agreement accounts for a very large proportion of the six that provide 80% of the value but it is in a very restricted sector—pearls, precious metals and jewellery. Therefore, we have to understand a much wider issue. The majority of the EU FTA agreements and the ones that account for 80% of their value deal with precious metals, pearls, jewellery and mineral fuels. They do not supply food or medicines—the sorts of things that will be in short supply if we crash out on 29 March.

To focus a little more on the wider context, can the Minister now confirm clearly to the House that, if there is a withdrawal agreement, after 29 March 2019 the UK will be a third country, no longer participating as an EU member, and that it will have to rely on the EU’s promise to notify its current partners that the UK is to be treated as a member state? But of course that will be entirely up to the countries concerned and, as things stand, a very small number of the agreements with those countries will be in place on 29 March.

If there is no deal and we leave on WTO terms, the crucial question that is missing from this whole discussion is: what tariffs will be applied when we leave? Can the Minister confirm when we will get some information about the tariff rates that will be applied? We gathered from the exchanges yesterday in another place that the much-touted story over the weekend that the Government would go for zero tariffs has no credibility. The Minister in the other place said that that would not be the case. Can the Minister also confirm that the Government will announce the tariffs very shortly? If so, when will that be?

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank the noble Lord. I think I heard two questions there. First, he asked whether it is true that if, as is the Government’s priority, we leave with a deal—that is, with a withdrawal agreement and an implementation period—the EU has to propose that the UK is treated as a partner for the purposes of these trade agreements. That is correct. I do not believe that that is a secret. My understanding is that the countries with which we have been having these discussions are happy about that and are supporting continuity on that basis. That has been the basis on which we have been proceeding.

Secondly, the noble Lord asked what tariffs would be in place in the case of no deal. Again, I stress that a lot of the focus is on getting a deal, although there is a risk of no deal. We have already started to provide information on GOV.UK and have provided technical notices to businesses with some elements of specificity and suggestions about what they can do. If it looks as though there will be no deal, clearly the Government will come forward with a day-one tariffs paper. As I imagine the noble Lord would expect, I cannot confirm the date of that but I can confirm that it will happen.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I think I have reiterated just how important climate change is to the Government’s priorities. The question is: what is the appropriate and most effective way to discuss climate change and to get rules put in place? There are differences of view over the most effective mechanisms, and many would say that trade agreements are not the right place. Others are more effective on that point. However, as we have tried to do and as the noble Baroness will have seen with our most recent trade agreements, such as CETA, we also include references to environmental standards.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am trying to help both sides come to an arrangement. I do not think that the noble Baroness whose amendment we are talking about is trying to set out a route map for the Government—if she is, she is doing it in a very gentle and responsive way. I think she is struggling, as we all are, with the question: if you want to make changes—which she so evidently does, and which a lot of us would support—what is the best way of doing that? Obviously, the noble Baroness has made it clear that you can do it on three levels. You can do it on a case-by-case basis as trade agreements come up, inserting the points you want to make. Alternatively, you can go through the United Nations, which is separate but still obviously influential as regards the wider tone and context in which these matters operate. But the central point, as the noble Baroness said, is that the WTO itself is in some difficulty. It may be all we have and the only way we can do it, but is the Minister seized of the arguments being made that the status quo is not satisfactory in so many ways that there needs to be some sort of movement around the whole issue, but presumably focusing on the WTO, and does she support that?

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Absolutely; I hope I restated that the WTO needs reform in areas such as digital, speed of processing and a number of others. We will continue to be an active participant in those discussions. Therefore, I can say yes to reform. On the particular area of climate change, we also have a clear objective: the Government want to improve the culture of climate change and the approach to it. It is about what is the best way to achieve that, and that is what we are focusing on. With those clarifications, I ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

I confess that I am unaware of the protocol in this regard. It is a ways and supplies Act and was deemed by the Speaker to be such, but I will leave that point to those who are more au fait with protocol.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am not sure that this will help very much, but a negative procedure is a negative procedure. It can be questioned, but the way to do so is by tabling an amendment within the requisite period after the order has been laid that would be fatal to it. That is normally described as the nuclear option, which suggests that it does not happen very often—in fact, it has happened only once in the past five years, I think; and we on this side of the House are certainly chary about doing it. The affirmative procedure is actually not that much more effective: you still need the nuclear option, but at least there is a requirement on the Government to bring it to the House, so it will be debated, irrespective of their wishes.

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification.

My noble friend also raised the economic interest and public interest tests and how they would be interpreted by the courts. The economic interest test will be based on the list of economic criteria set out in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act—I think I will call it the TCBTA for brevity. The TRA must take all of those into account, and so must the courts. With regard to the public interest, as part of the final decision-making, the Secretary of State will have an opportunity to intervene where there are circumstances in which the imposition of trade remedy measures are not, in his or her view, in the public interest. This could include national security considerations, for instance, but other examples may arise in individual cases, so it is important that the Secretary of State has a degree of discretion in this area such that all wider public interest considerations are taken into account. The ability of Ministers to undertake a final sense check in this way is a common feature in many comparable regimes, such as Australia and Canada.

Stakeholders have expressed their support for the establishment of the TRA. The CBI said that it strongly supported the initiative to set it up, and the British Ceramic Confederation called for the Government to prioritise the TRA to ensure that it will be fully operational by the March 2019 deadline, and this must include appointing the board.

The final area raised by my noble friend was about whether poor social and environmental standards would be taken into account. We recognise that the EU has recently introduced reform to take poor social and environmental standards into account. The UK plays an active role in upholding labour and environmental standards across the world both as a member of the ILO and by actively promoting human rights. However, our view is that trade remedy cases are not an appropriate vehicle for such issues, and these factors are not referred to in the WTO. We want to ensure that economic growth, development and environmental protection go hand in hand. We are exploring all options in the design of future plurilateral and bilateral trade and investment agreements, including with regard to human rights and environmental and labour protections. In practice, any cost advantages enjoyed by an exporting country as a result of low labour or environmental standards or costs will be reflected in its export prices and hence will already be taken into account when calculating the injury margin.

I turn now to Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I assure the Committee that Clause 10(1)(b) already allows the Secretary of State to seek,

“advice, support and assistance … in connection with the … functions of the Secretary of State relating to trade”.

This could include the conduct of trade within a customs union and the impact of third-country trade remedy measures on UK consumers. Were we to accept this amendment, it could undermine the intended non-exhaustive nature of the current drafting and potentially make it less effective.

On Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, we appreciate the need for the TRA’s activities to be transparent. Paragraph 31 of Schedule 4 already requires the TRA to report annually on the exercise of its functions. We would therefore expect the TRA to record any requests from the Secretary of State for advice, support and assistance in its annual report. This is because this would be considered part of the TRA’s statutory functions. We therefore do not feel that this amendment is required.

Turning to Amendments 101A and 103B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, whom I met last week, I confirm that we are committed to supporting UK manufacturers and producers. That is why we have engaged so extensively with industry during the establishment of the TRA. However, we do not believe that representatives of any specific organisation should be on the TRA board. It is vital that it is, and is seen to be, wholly impartial, and for the membership to be based on securing the right blend of skills and expertise. That said, I assure the Committee that the TRA chair job description makes it clear that they will be expected to maintain effective relationships with stakeholders—including manufacturers, trade unions and the devolved Administrations—and to incorporate their perspective into board discussions where appropriate. We will also ensure that the appropriate terms on working with stakeholders are included in the terms of the TRA chair’s contract. Some of the TRA’s wider senior leadership, including its non-executives, may have experience in a particular sector, devolved nation or region. However, that alone must not be why they were chosen. The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, also asked whether we could have specific representatives. We believe that could possibly undermine the TRA’s independence and impartiality, and we want to make sure that the TRA’s expertise is complete by allowing the board members to be appointed not on the basis of where they are from but because they have the right skills and expertise for the blend of skills required on the TRA.

On Amendment 102, I assure the Committee that we are committed to ensuring the independence, impartiality and expertise of the board. That is why the Secretary of State has requested that the Commissioner for Public Appointments regulates all public appointments to the TRA.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe asked why we were setting up a new body rather than just exercising the function within government. I agree entirely that the important thing is that the board has to be independently minded. Decisions on these cases can have a profound impact on the markets. That is why we need an objective and independent investigation process that businesses can trust. The TRA will be responsible for carrying out detailed technical investigations and delivering impartial recommendations on trade remedies to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will then be responsible for making a final determination on whether to accept or reject recommendations to impose measures.

We have also been asked—again, by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Lansley—why we have not established the TRA as an executive agency. We looked at best-practice comparable agencies across the world, and we are trying to ensure the right balance between independent, impartial, objective investigations that our businesses and trading partners can trust and accountability. That is the critical thing that we looked at.

The Commissioner for Public Appointments will be responsible for providing independent assurance that the Secretary of State follows the Governance Code on Public Appointments when appointing TRA non-executives. He or she will be required to comply with the governance code, which outlines rules around term lengths and renewing the appointments of non-executive members. Executive members will be TRA public servant staff, whose recruitment will be made in compliance with the usual public sector rules. The governance code makes it clear that:

“The ultimate responsibility for appointments … rests with Ministers”.


It states that there is an important role for Parliament in ensuring Ministers are held,

“accountable … for their decisions and actions”.

However, this scrutiny should not extend to approving or vetoing their appointments. This would be an expansion of standard Select Committee powers.

Amendment 103, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, concerns maintaining safety and public confidence in the food we eat. She is not here, so all I can do is confirm that this Government will remain committed to environmental protection standards once we have left the EU.

Amendments 103A and 107A were tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. I reassure noble Lords that this power is intended simply as an operational contingency measure in the TRA. As such, it can be used only before the first chair has been appointed. My noble friend and other noble Lords asked whether that still makes sense given we now have a chair-designate. I will definitely reflect on that, because it is a good point. On appointing the chair, as I said, the chief executive will be a public servant and, as my noble friend Lord Lansley agreed, it would not be appropriate for a Select Committee to be involved in their recruitment. I assure the Committee that the chief executive-designate has been recruited on merit following a fair and open competition, in line with the Civil Service Commission Recruitment Principles. All future TRA chief executives will be appointed on the same principles.

My noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, asked whether the ITC should conduct pre-appointment scrutiny. It is the view of officials in the department that the TRA chair role does not meet the Cabinet Office’s criteria for determining whether public appointments should be subject to Select Committee pre-appointment scrutiny. However, we are committed to ensuring that appointments are conducted in the right way, consistent with standard practice across government. The governance code states:

“Ministers when making appointments should act solely in terms of the public interest”,


and, likewise:

“All public appointments should be governed by the principle of appointment on merit”.


We therefore feel that there is already sufficient oversight and scrutiny of that process in place.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I will intervene before the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, does—I am sure he was just about to. I do not want to extend this, but the noble Baroness has just spent slightly longer than three or four minutes playing up how important this role is and how crucial the new body will be to the future of our trading policy. She explained, in some detail, the difficult position, the reason it is independent and everything else. She cannot also then argue that it does not fulfil the very clear lines given by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the important need for independence and for it to be seen to have the trust of all concerned, including Parliament. Will she take that back?

[Baroness Fairhead]

I am happy to take that back. I have heard the point. I asked whether there was a practice and was advised that this was the view we had arrived at, but I will certainly reflect on what the noble Lord said and take it back for further consideration.

On Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, it is important that the Secretary of State has the ability to ensure that the TRA has the right leadership in place. Again, I reassure the noble Lord that the practices and procedures will be followed.

My noble friend Lord Lansley speculated on whether we could use an existing arm’s-length body rather than create a new one. There are two reasons why we believe we need to create a new non-departmental public body. First, no existing NDPB possesses the required pool of talent and expertise, or, secondly, offers the right balance of independence and ministerial oversight, to deliver the trade remedies framework as set out in the TCBT Act. I can confirm that we reached that decision following a thorough review of the arm’s-length bodies landscape.

Amendments 105 and 106 refer to the Secretary of State, rather than the chair, appointing executive members of the TRA board, and would therefore expand the Secretary of State’s appointment powers. We believe that might undermine the TRA’s independence. It would also be undesirable to include a statutory requirement to have regard to this set of criteria, as it might be unnecessarily restrictive. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has great expertise in this area. As she knows, it is important to have the right skills and the right blend on a board. For example, it may be important for some executive members to have HR or finance experience to ensure the TRA’s smooth operation. This would be a decision for the TRA chair.

Turning to Amendment 107, under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 4, the TRA chair is able to remove an executive member of the TRA board, and the Secretary of State a non-executive member, if they consider that person,

“unable or unfit to carry out the functions of the office”.

This already allows the TRA chair and the Secretary of State to determine whether to remove board members in the event that they become insolvent, receive a criminal conviction or are otherwise deemed unsuitable. We therefore do not believe that this amendment is necessary. In addition, all members of the TRA will be required to comply with the Cabinet Office’s Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies, which sets out the seven principles of public life that should govern the behaviour of public officeholders.

Turning to Amendment 108, let me assure noble Lords that the TRA will be required to follow the relevant provisions in Managing Public Money, which sets out that arm’s-length bodies must maintain a register of gifts. We would also expect the TRA to record in its annual report any gifts it receives.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for tabling Amendment 109. We welcome the devolved Administrations’ interest in the TRA and understand the need to ensure that they are able to engage with it in the right way. I can confirm that the Secretary of State has committed to sharing the TRA’s annual report with the devolved Administrations once he has received it. I can also confirm that we have been in contact with, and will shortly be writing to, the devolved Administrations setting out further commitments.

On Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, there are certain situations where the Secretary of State will need to issue guidance to the TRA. That is why it would not be appropriate to set out certain detail in legislation. Issuing guidance instead of legislation would give the TRA the operational flexibility it needs to be able to decide how to deal with matters on a case-by-case basis. However, to protect the TRA’s independence, and to ensure that this power is used only in appropriate circumstances, we have placed clear statutory restrictions on the Secretary of State’s ability to issue that guidance.

I am aware that I possibly have not fully answered the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. We recognise the critical role played by producers and manufacturers: that is exactly why we have put a system in place and engaged extensively. We look forward to continuing to do so.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh suggested that it was not adequate that the Secretary of State was required only to have regard to the independence, impartiality and expertise of the TRA. The imposition of a duty on the Secretary of State is a common approach and can be found in other relevant legislation. For example, the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers when issuing guidance to the Office for Students. These are statutory requirements and cannot be ignored.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I am delighted to allow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to realise his ambition, but I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that this is important. Therefore, no torpidity is allowed, even at this late stage.

As this is the last group of amendments, I hope the Committee will indulge me with a short concluding comment, allowing me to record my appreciation to noble Lords who have taken part in all the debates. The quality and constructive nature of the engagement has been incredibly valuable—not just in the Chamber, but outside in meetings. I particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord McNicol and Lord Purvis. On a personal level, I also thank the Bill team for some tremendous work, and my valiant and true noble friends Lord Bates and Lord Younger.

The Committee has provided us with a valuable opportunity to probe the detail of the Bill. It has also allowed all sides to listen to other noble Lords’ sometimes conflicting points of view. We now have some time in which to reflect on the views we have heard in these debates. We shall be using that time carefully, and I look forward to debating the Bill further on Report.

Before addressing the specifics of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, it is important to outline the Government’s approach to leaving the European Union in the light of recent events in the other place. As this House is aware, the other place rejected the proposed withdrawal agreement and political declaration, with just 202 MPs voting in favour. However, following the debate last week, a majority of MPs have now said they would support a deal with changes to the backstop.

Combined with measures to address concerns over Parliament’s role in the negotiation of the future relationships and commitments on workers’ rights, the Government are now confident that there is a route that can secure a majority in Parliament for leaving the EU with a deal. The Government will now take this mandate forward and seek to obtain legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement that deal with concerns on the backstop, while guaranteeing no return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

As the Prime Minister said, we acknowledge that there is limited appetite for change in the EU, and negotiating it will not be easy. However, in contrast to a fortnight ago, Parliament has made it clear what it needs to approve the withdrawal agreement. Tuesday’s vote shows that Parliament does not want to leave the EU without a deal, and the Government are therefore working hard to achieve one. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, eloquently talked of the importance of the EU trade deal.

However, simply opposing no deal is not enough to stop it, and the Government must now redouble its efforts to get a deal that Parliament can support. The Prime Minister has agreed to discuss the best way the Government can deliver what I would call the Spelman amendment.

The amendment to the Trade Bill here today would not prevent a no deal. The only ways to prevent a no-deal outcome are either with a deal or by revoking or extending Article 50, which is not government policy. The Trade Bill cannot therefore be used as a sort of proxy to prevent the UK leaving the EU without a deal. This amendment, or other tweaks, will not stop a no deal, but will simply increase the risks of a worse outcome in a no-deal scenario. We are clear that the very best way to leave the EU is with a deal and an implementation period, and that is absolutely the aim of this Government.

I also repeat that, although leaving with a deal which ensures an implementation period is our clear aim, any responsible Government must also develop contingency measures in case of no deal.

I turn to Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Hannay and Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lady Altmann. I have welcomed the debate and your Lordships’ scrutiny of the Bill, which really underlines the value of this House. The challenge has been constructive, extremely helpful and underpinned by the genuine knowledge of so many noble Lords. The Government will reflect carefully on the points; we have committed to come back with proposals and will do so before Report. Having gone through Committee, I hope the whole Committee will acknowledge the importance of the provisions in the Trade Bill, and the need for any responsible Government to bring forward these provisions whether or not there is a deal with the EU.

As the Committee will be aware, the Trade Bill covers four important and essential areas to ensure continuity for consumers, businesses and our international trading partners. The purpose, as we said—I was trying to keep the number of repetitions low—is continuity. The Bill provides: powers needed for the UK to implement the GPA, maintaining the access of UK companies to some £1.3 trillion-worth of business, and to ensure that we get the best deal for taxpayers; powers to enable the UK to transition trade agreements that currently exist between the EU and other countries, and to which we are currently a signatory via our membership of the EU to prevent any disruption to UK businesses or our consumers; critical powers to establish a new UK Trade Remedies Authority to provide that critical safety net to protect domestic industries from unfair practices; and powers to collect and share data on trade. This will help us build a richer picture of UK trading patterns to help the Government identify new opportunities, and provide data to support TRA investigations. I hope the Committee will recognise that these are sensible measures and that any reasonable Government would be legislating in these areas in the light of our exit from the EU.

Last week’s vote in the other place shows us that Parliament does not want to leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement and future framework. Although I recognise the position of many in this House is not to leave without a deal, as I said at the start, this mandate from Parliament is not enough on its own to stop no deal. That is why the Government will now redouble their efforts to get a deal that Parliament can support. It is for those reasons that I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the Minister for her kind words and the way in which she turned down our hope of a late but well-deserved goal. I always say to my colleagues that they must stop using sporting metaphors because they do not work for half the population of the House but here I am, about to refer to the second half. I am sorry about that.

In her thanks, the Minister should have also recognised herself; I will do it for her because I am sure she is too embarrassed to do it. It is almost impossible to believe that this is the Minister’s first Bill. She has handled us with considerable assurance and a wonderful sense of calm. Every time she rises it is a great balm to those who might otherwise want to cause trouble and do terrible things in a House which is noted for its civility and gentility. I do not know what the word is for sororal approaches—I will probably get in trouble for that as well. It has been a very good experience so far; we look forward to the second half—sorry about that. We think we can work together and there are things here we can work together on, and we should try to hammer out such agreements that we have. There may be differences—quite principled ones which we need to address—but I do not think we should worry about that; the House should be asked for its views on a number of points that we have covered in Committee. It has been a good experience and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank my noble friend for that clarification. I should have said that it was not a government amendment. But I take the point.

I meant to respond to that question. We are trying to do whatever we can to provide help to SMEs and other organisations to help trade. That includes working with them on procedures and practices which will reduce the cost of, and barriers to, trade. I confirm that we are actively engaging with the chambers. If it is not on this particular point, I will take that back to the department and make sure that we include this too.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, what is now Clause 6 was an amendment introduced by a Conservative Back-Bencher in the other place. Did I hear the Minister correctly when she said that it was still the Government’s contemplation that this might be amendable? I point out to her, in case she is in any doubt, that this would require a government amendment, which I have not seen on the Marshalled List so far. Is she saying that this is something they are actively considering for Report?

[Baroness Fairhead]

The Government do not endorse the wording of the amendment, and consider that the wording has legal and technical difficulties, so we are reflecting on what should be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

I am happy to confirm that.

I turn to Amendment 64. Trade continuity agreements, which Clause 2 would be used to implement, simply continue the effects of existing EU trade agreements. Many of the benefits are already being reaped by UK businesses. I hope that my noble friend can take comfort from my reassurance in my responses to Amendments 32 and 52, and I would like to reassure her further by confirming that any impact assessments published at the time the agreements we are transitioning came into force remain valid. On the international agreements referenced by my noble friend, I can confirm that we have not changed our commitment to them. The process of exiting the EU will not alter the UK’s commitment to upholding either international laws or our international commitments. These include commitments on climate change and the sustainable development goals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lady Hooper both raised issues in a number of areas such as human rights, labour and environmental standards around the world. In an earlier debate in Committee we confirmed that we will proudly continue to comply with those international obligations. In response to the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on monitoring by independent bodies, I can confirm that that too will continue.

I turn now to Amendment 81, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. Let me be clear that the Government will continue to ensure that Parliament and the devolved Administrations play a crucial role in the scrutiny of the UK’s trade agreements. We are in discussions at both official and ministerial level on this.

Specifically in relation to compliance, I must stress that the UK will not bring into force any international agreement without first ensuring that it is fully compliant with its obligations. Where we are transitioning existing ratified EU trade agreements, we have been complying with those agreements as a member of the EU. We are working hard to ensure that we continue to be compliant after leaving the EU, for example by using the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act to make UK law operable without reliance on the European Communities Act 1972. Any secondary legislation necessary to ensure that we are in compliance will be made before ratification, following the usual parliamentary processes. This means that we will start from a point of being in compliance with our agreements. We would expect the same of our international partners. This is simply what is required when it comes to making international treaties.

Normally within trade agreements there are mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing the agreement through bodies such as joint committees. This applies both to our compliance and the compliance of our partner countries. We will of course look to replicate the functions of these existing mechanisms. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned that we should make sure that we reflect the regions and the devolved Administrations. Again, I am happy to meet with him to discuss how that can be done. We will operate the mechanisms according to the terms specified in the relevant agreement. These will of course differ by agreement, but we will be accountable for compliance overall. I hope that this reassures the Committee, and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, it is pretty much an open secret that amendments of the type we have just spoken to are usually tabled by Oppositions when they have very little to say about a topic. You call for a review and that usually ties up the civil servants for days trying to work out what that is supposed to do. It gets the Minister into a knot and allows you to have a relatively easy passage, especially if the Bill is a bit boring at that particular point. That is not what has happened today, and indeed we have been reminded that it has worked in the past. I recall the discussion during the passage of the Intellectual Property Act and it has worked out well.

There is a case here for thinking really hard about what we want to see happen as a review. I accept absolutely that my amendment is ridiculously overspecified and gold-plated. I am happy to learn from noble Lords who have served as Ministers and those who have experience of this on the other side. We could probably with advantage put together quite a sensible, minimalised amendment which would cover the ground. The Minister spoke about wanting to meet to discuss this; that would be worth while. If we can get sensibility, scale and scope in a reasonable approach, we can make some progress here.

I do not think this can just be left to the passage of time. It is true that the Bill as currently drafted has considerations of reviews, but these were late additions and are not well drafted. We have already noted earlier in Committee that while Clauses 3 and 5 make provision for reports to be provided, Clause 4 provides an opportunity for Ministers to duck out of that; and they deal with the process of agreement, not of review. I therefore think there is a bit of a lacuna here in the Government’s approach. We may be able to resolve it by statements in the House, but there may be a case for having at least something in the Bill to cover it.

Other points were made in this very rich debate. I do not think we need to look too hard—I was going say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, but he is not in his place. The EU model, although it exists and operates, is not perfect, and there is already much documentation on how it needs to be improved if it is to be effective. The question of independence is not dealt with in the current drafting of the Bill. I think there is a sense around the Committee of a coming together on this issue. We should take advantage of that—a meeting would be very useful—and I look forward to being able to make some progress on this in a relatively easy way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Brexit: EU Free Trade Agreements

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 24th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating in the form of a Statement the Answer given to the Urgent Question in another place. The Government have made it clear that prudence dictates that sensible planning should be undertaken as we are only some 10 weeks from leaving under a no-deal scenario—except, apparently, in the Department for International Trade. Yesterday in Committee, the Minister said that while the Government have been engaging actively with the countries which currently have a free trade agreement in the variety of forms that it takes with the EU, she could not say what steps are necessary in each of those countries to roll over their agreements to the UK, how many are ready to do that and how many are not. This seems incredible.

If we do crash out on 29 March, we will not be in a free trade agreement, a customs union or a preferential agreement with any of these countries. Have the Government told these countries what tariff rates the UK will apply from one second after 11 pm on 29 March 2019? More importantly, have they told UK businesses what the rules will be? If not, why not?

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the question. The Government have been clear. We are aiming to have a deal and an implementation period. On that basis we are confident of the continuity. My honourable friend Minister Hollingbery said in another place that he was confident that most of those 40 agreements would be continued.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fairhead]

I am happy to meet the noble Baroness and the noble Lord with officials to go through the detail of this, and then we will prepare a letter for the Committee if required. The discussions on whether the UN Commission on International Trade Law—UNCITRAL—should seek to establish a multilateral investment court are in their preliminary stages; there are no firm proposals on the structure, governance or cost. We are actively engaged. However, discussions on that possible reform are at an early stage. We should not prejudge the outcome of that process, because to do so could preclude the UK from making a later judgment when proposals are more advanced. We look forward to working with international partners. In addition to the discussion I offered, I welcome discussing this topic further. There are a range of views on this question. At this stage, should the UK require a universal commitment to pursue a multilateral investment court in all future agreements, that could result in the loss of our negotiating space.

In respect of the true aims of this Bill and the resolution systems that are already in place, and given our commitments to discuss MICs, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the Minister for her full discussion of these issues. As she started I was thinking that we could have got a better result if we had drafted Amendment 29 in the positive rather than negative tone—to make it optional in, rather than to restrict out, which was the main complaint she had about it. As the argument has extended, I can see there is a lot more going on here than we were aware of at the time we drafted it. I am sure that I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the idea that if we can have a discussion about all the various things going forward, we might be able to have a better understanding of where, if at all, there is any need to move on that.

Having said that, the Minister mentioned that there was a lot of interest in it. I stress again that this is the one single issue that I have had the most correspondence about. Just about every group involved in trade and development has picked this as its number one issue. It is good that work is being done on it, in the sense that one is not trying to constrain good and effective systems that arrive at having a fair, efficient and highly regarded court that will have all the details and be able to deal with the various aspects of it. Clearly, we do not want to disadvantage other countries in relation to anything we might be doing. These are the pieces in play, as it were, and it is a question of trying to get confidence from Ministers and officials that things are moving forward.

In some ways—although this may be the wrong line to follow—it is quite like the discussions on the Unified Patent Court. There is a person not too far away from the noble Baroness who has quite a lot of detailed experience of that. That is an ad hominem—I do not know what the Latin is—but it relates to a particular issue: patentem. It has a link into but is not part of the European Court of Justice, which would play back to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. It might be too elegant a solution, but I wonder if that might be something we might also pick up, because there is something in there that might square all the circles. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I know the European process in outline; I cannot say that I understand it in the depth that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, does, given his experience in that area. I want to differentiate between the continuity agreements and future trade agreements. Because we are talking about rolling over existing agreements, we expect to replicate the effects as closely as we can, so as not to disrupt trading patterns, so this is a different type of progress report. The noble Lord makes an important and valid point about the scrutiny of future trade agreements and we will discuss that later in the debate.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I go back to an earlier question asked by the noble Lord, about whether or not the Government are in a position to notify those who are directly involved in this in a no-deal situation, which we all hope does not happen but in which we are out of the EU at 11.01 pm on 29 March, to be accurate. What conditions need to be satisfied before those who are directly involved in trade on that day and at that time get access to information about the proposed tariff arrangements? Absent that, we are talking about a very short period for those who have businesses to organise, decisions to make and loans to raise, as has been said. The other half of this is that if we are talking about continuity arrangements at that stage, when will we be in a position to know exactly how many countries are ready to do a deal with us at 11.01 pm on 29 March, how many are not and how many will take time to get their own arrangements sorted? Without that information we are not really in a position to judge whether or not the Government are making a good fist of this.

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, on the 11.01 pm—or one minute past midnight—point, technical notices have already been sent out and no-deal planning has been ramped up, as the noble Lord will have seen in the Prime Minister’s announcement. Communications are planned for businesses and there are training programmes to make sure that the Civil Service and various departments are ready with information as required. Clearly, our primary focus is on achieving plan A and a deal, and therefore this is contingency planning, but that planning has been ramped up in the event—that we do not want—that there is no deal. I cannot say the exact moment that those notices will come out but I understand the noble Lord’s concern, and businesses’ concern, about what will happen in the following hour. Obviously, that will be taken into account.

As for third countries and where they are, I do not think I can add to what I said, which is that we are actively engaged and if there is a deal followed by an implementation period, we will be an awful lot more comfortable about the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, once again I support the amendments of my noble friend Lady Henig; I will also speak against Clauses 4 and 5 standing part of the Bill. Counterintuitively, I will deal with Clause 5 stand part first, simply because it follows exactly in the same vein as the reasons I gave for suggesting that Clause 3 should not stand part. Clause 5 deals with reports to be laid with regulations under Section 2(1). In an expanded, more amplified and better and more rounded policy dealing with both the continuity of free trade agreements and the new free trade agreements, we would have a completely different system sitting in place, so Clause 5 would be otiose, which is why I put this forward. I will not press this and I do not need much response from the Minister because we will return to this issue later in group 13.

However, I wonder about Clause 4. It seems at a superficial level to give the Government a “get out of jail free” card in relation to any reports that they might feel obliged to make, particularly if they are expanded in terms of my noble friend Lady Henig’s original proposal under Clause 3. Clause 3 states:

“Before the United Kingdom ratifies the proposed agreement, a Minister … must lay before Parliament a report which gives details of, and explains the reasons for, any significant differences between—


(a) the trade-related provisions of the proposed agreement, and

(b) the trade-related provisions of the existing free trade agreement”.

But Clause 4 states:

“Section 3 does not apply to a free trade agreement if a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that, exceptionally, the agreement needs to be ratified without laying before Parliament a report which meets the requirements”.


I stress that phrase,

“a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that”,

and the use of “exceptionally”, which is an interesting word. In other words, you do not have to do it if you have sufficient gravitas and the ability to convince Parliament that you are not of that opinion and that it is exceptional, so you can get away with it. That is not satisfactory drafting.

This is not a good clause to be in a Bill of this nature. It certainly does not meet the questions that we have been raising about proper transparency, accounting and independence of reporting. When the Minister comes to reply, I hope that she will consider taking this away. If she cannot bring herself to agree that this needs redrafting, perhaps she can write to me explaining why it does not.

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I too will try to give a short response to the amendments before us, and first on Amendment 22 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. Clause 4 creates an exemption from the reporting requirement so that, in exceptional circumstances, the Government may seek to ratify an agreement without having first published the associated report on changes made to it. Let me categorically reassure noble Lords that we intend to draw on the reporting exemption provided for in the Bill only if we are in exceptional circumstances.

I am sure the Committee will agree that we may find ourselves in exceptional times. We cannot predict the speed with which continuity agreements will be ready for signature. Moreover, the exemption is narrow. It does not remove the requirement for a report to be laid. It simply provides a little leeway to enable a trade agreement to progress to avoid a cliff edge. The Government would still be required to lay a report as soon as possible following ratification. I hear the noble Lord, and will reflect on the drafting, but in a sense it was because of the uncertainty about the speed.

Amendment 23 would ensure that, if this exemption is invoked, the report would have to be laid no later than 10 days after ratification. Again, to be clear, we have drafted this exemption for use in only the most urgent of circumstances. If we were to need to rely on this, it would be necessary to ensure that we could continue to operate in the most uncertain of contexts, and avoid that cliff edge.

Clause 5 will ensure that the Government lay their report 10 days in advance of using the Clause 2 power to implement any obligations of a continuity agreement. That will ensure that Parliament is wholly informed about how we intend to deliver continuity for an agreement before it is required to consider implementing legislation. If we removed Clause 5, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested, the Government would not be bound in any way to report, so we should set that aside.

Before I conclude on this point, I would like to inform the Committee about an amendment that the Government will bring forward on Report. As the Committee is aware, the purpose of the Government’s trade continuity programme is to seek continuity of the effects of existing EU free trade agreements as far as possible as we leave the EU. The vast majority of these existing trade agreements, which we are part of as an EU member state, are already in operation and have been scrutinised by Parliament. Let me make it clear to the Committee that we do not expect to need to change existing domestic equalities legislation as part of this programme. In the unlikely event that we choose to make minor or consequential changes to this legislation, we will aim to ensure that this does not result in reduced protection against unlawful discrimination or diminution of equality rights.

However, to ensure suitable transparency and accountability on this particularly important issue, we intend to provide that a ministerial Statement is made alongside any draft statutory instrument laid under the Clause 2 power. The Statement would outline whether the statutory instrument repealed, revoked or amended any provision of the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under them. In addition, I am happy to confirm that the reports under Clause 3 will explain any changes that would be required to equalities legislation as a result of our shift from an EU to a UK agreement if, and I stress if, any changes are needed. My officials have agreed to work together with the Equality and Human Rights Commission—and I put on record our thanks for its efforts in helping us to design the process so far—on designing the content and templates for these reports.

I hope that that reassures the Committee and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. Additionally, I commend that Clauses 4 and 5 stand part of the Bill.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank my noble friend for that important question. I think this issue comes later in the amendments, but I can confirm that we intend essentially to take exactly the schedules that currently exist for the UK, as they exist through membership of the EU, and put them into our new independent membership, so that those do not change.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

With respect, I think that the noble Lord had a second and more important part to his question. What happens if we want to change them?

[Baroness Fairhead]

My understanding is that any regulations would go through the normal procedures of scrutiny. No changes in law would be allowable without scrutiny.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The Minister must put me right if I am wrong. She just said that these were such small changes that they would not warrant anything other than simply negative scrutiny. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, they could affect the materiality of how we administer and run our National Health Service, which would be a major change. Surely the whole argument that she is making needs to be resolved: if the Government are going to say that these changes are so small and trivial that they do not warrant the full scrutiny of consultation, the corollary of that is that they would need to be done by the affirmative system, not the negative.

[Baroness Fairhead]

I can confirm that we are copying the existing schedules directly across. There are no changes, so there is no need for scrutiny of changes, because no changes will be brought across.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank my noble friend for the question. My understanding is that it puts us in the same position as we are today. When parties want to withdraw from or join the GPA, a process is gone through with the EU in which they demonstrate their intention and present their schedules to the WTO. Each member then decides whether they are prepared to accept that new addition or withdrawal. That is the process that we would go through. If that should happen, the Bill gives a power to implement under SIs. Parliament would be able to decide whether new members could join or leave.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank all speakers in this short debate. The early contributions were to do largely with devolved issues. I think that we will come back to them, but they raise exactly the thorny difficulties that can emerge from making this work in practice. My noble friend Lord Hain spoke of not wanting to see an action replay of the “power grab”—his words, not mine, but I understand where he is coming from—by the Government in relation to the withdrawal Bill. We do not want to see that repeated, so I hope that the Government are able to reassure us that progress has been made on this and that some sensible and effective negotiations will be in place to allow it to be done effectively and with support all round.

It has not taken us very long to stumble into areas which were exactly the point of the amendment to the committal Motion made by noble friend Lady Smith. We are talking about “what happens if” rather than just about continuity. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has stumbled across quite an interesting point—I am in no sense making a point about him; the noble Baroness the former Minister also picked up something about “what happens if” and how it is resolved. I am not saying that we are doing anything wrong here, but it illustrates the difficulty of trying to narrow down to a continuity mode without thinking about the wider context.

I draw from this several things. First, on whose powers we are talking about when the regulations are in place, the Bill uses curious phraseology:

“An appropriate authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate”.


That could be extended to the power being exercised by Ministers in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly when it is reformed. There is nothing wrong with that—if they have the powers and the right to use them, they should do so—but it is a very different scenario from that pointed to by the Minister, about us always having the security of the negative resolution procedure when looking at how the regulations operate. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made exactly that point: these things are live and moving. They will change quite rapidly and we will have to exercise some of these arrangements. I am not sure that the negative resolution procedure is right for that.

However, the Minister’s reliance on the procedures under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is surely misplaced. Much of our debate on this Bill will be about the inadequacies of the CRaG procedures at present. To rely on them taking us forward because they are already in statute is to deny a whole series of debates and questions raised by them. I will not go into this at this stage; it will come up later. But it surely cannot be right for this Parliament to accept that a simple Motion to approve a complicated trade agreement, a complicated set of arrangements around procurement, or anything else that falls into that category can be done without amendment, debate or the ability to go through them in the form of primary legislation. We will come back to that.

We have had a good debate on these issues; I shall read Hansard carefully, and I am sure that there will be things that we pick up later in correspondence. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, as I repeated, the Government’s priority is to bring certainty to businesses and the public so that we will have continuity in our current trade and investment arrangements with non-EU markets after we have left the EU. Certainty is something for which we have heard widespread support in both Houses of Parliament, and not having the ability to implement our continuity agreements fully could jeopardise our ability to deliver it. Both the International Trade Select Committee and the Trade Bill Committee have heard from external witnesses that continuity is what businesses want. The report published by the International Trade Select Committee on 28 February 2018 clearly stated:

“Almost no one who contributed to our inquiry suggested that the Government’s policy objective of seeking continuity was the wrong one”.


Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, seeks to ensure that before we use the Clause 2 power to implement obligations of a continuity agreement, we have consulted appropriate stakeholders. While I believe I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, this amendment would have the practical impact of delaying our ability to use the Clause 2 power to implement obligations of any continuity agreement until we had satisfied this condition. This would be problematic to the delivery of our programme, as we are working at pace to ensure continuity in existing trade relationships. Once we have signed continuity agreements with our existing partners, we need to ensure that we have implemented all obligations of these agreements to guard against a cliff edge as we leave the EU. This needs to happen before we can bring these agreements into force, which is what will deliver continuity on the ground to businesses which are already benefitting from the terms of EU trade agreements.

We are seeking to balance the need to maintain pace with providing appropriate scrutiny and oversight. That is why, in the other place, we upgraded the operation of the Clause 2 power by requiring a report on each agreement to be laid before both Houses and an affirmative resolution to provide the additional scrutiny that colleagues in the other place were seeking. This means that Members of both Houses will already have the opportunity to consider each use of the power fully through the established affirmative resolution procedure. As I have already mentioned, the power is subject to constraint and will not be used to implement changes other than those necessary to secure continuity in our existing trade relationships.

Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, would mean that instead of using the Clause 2 power to implement “appropriate” changes to domestic regulation, it would be used to implement only “necessary” changes to domestic regulations. Again, I have sympathy with the noble Lord on this point. We are clear that we are going to use this power only to implement changes which are essential to deliver continuity. I understand where he is coming from with his suggested change to the Bill, but we have chosen to use the term “appropriate” following serious consideration of how best to reflect our policy in legislation. We have previously sought advice on this point, and the conclusion of that advice was that “appropriate” is the term which best fits the policy intention. This is because to use the term “necessary” would restrict the use of this power too much. As noble Lords know, our policy aim is to deliver continuity of effect of our agreements. To deliver this, we may need to have some tolerance for changes which may arguably not be strictly necessary but will nevertheless help us to deliver on our commitment of continuity and ensure legal certainty for UK businesses.

Limiting the power to only changes which were strictly necessary would set a very high bar and greatly increase the risk of legal challenge to the use of the power. It is one thing to justify a change as appropriate in all circumstances; it is quite another to demonstrate that that change was absolutely necessary. I am advised that this could provide a field day for lawyers and result in delays to continuity.

An example of a change that we will need to make through this power is ensuring continuity in our procurement arrangements in our free trade agreements. We will need to change the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 and the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016 to refer to our UK agreements instead of the EU agreements that they are based on. If we were to amend the wording of this power to say that changes needed to be necessary, we could be drawn into court challenges on whether a change was strictly necessary, thus leading to delays in implementation, which would leave a gap in continuity.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. We are in the territory of “may” and “must”, trying to decide whether we are drafting as we speak. I just want to ask her to calm down a bit, although that sounds a terrible thing to say. She has used the term “absolutely necessary”. I never said “absolutely”; the amendment just says “necessary”. Adding “absolutely necessary” would make things difficult. Therefore, it is not a case of changes being absolutely necessary—it is not essential that we do these things. I accept the point but will she accept that she is slightly overegging the case?

[Baroness Fairhead]

It was necessary for the noble Lord to ask about the word “absolutely”, but I object to being asked to calm down. I was trying to give your Lordships the clear advice that we have had because I thought that that was the advice and information they were seeking.

Given that any use of this Clause 2 power will already be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and given that we will lay the reports and our continuity free trade agreements will again be ratified by Parliament, Parliament will be fully appraised of the Government’s actions. I hope your Lordships will accept that that means that it will in fact already be fairly difficult for the Government to use the Clause 2 power without Parliament’s consent in one way or another.

I turn to Amendment 11. Clause 2 helps to facilitate a smooth transition by helping to implement the non-tariff obligations of continuity trade agreements. We realise that there are concerns about this power, so we have sought to constrain it as much as possible, and this has a number of parts. First, the power can be used to amend only UK primary legislation that is retained EU law and not any other UK legislation. Secondly, it is valid for only three years, and its lifetime can be extended only with agreement from both Houses of Parliament. We would seek to extend the powers only if it were considered necessary to ensure that our continuity agreements remained operable over time. Thirdly, the use of the power is subject to the affirmative resolution. Fourthly, the power will be used only in relation to continuity trade agreements, as we have made clear in the Explanatory Notes. Fifthly, to provide additional transparency for our programme as a whole, Clause 3 commits, in statute, the Government to providing reports on all continuity trade agreements, explaining our approach to delivering continuity in each case. In addition, I should make it clear to the Committee that regulations made under the Trade Bill will already comply with Section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, so this part of the amendment is unnecessary.

On Amendment 101, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, I assure the Committee that our existing trade agreements have already been examined by Parliament as part of its regular scrutiny of EU business. Ratified free trade agreements have already been through the normal parliamentary scrutiny process for treaty ratification. Our continuity agreements will also go through the CRaG process. The noble Lord raised some concerns about that but it gives parliamentarians an opportunity to challenge them in the established manner. Any regulations made under the Clause 2 power will be introduced under the affirmative resolution, which will provide an opportunity for lengthy examination if we need to make a change to the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansley has made a suggestion which I will definitely reflect on, as it is important that these reports give appropriate information. With respect to making the Clause 2 powers super-affirmative, I am concerned that the amendment would damage our ability to deliver the promise of continuity, particularly when time is of the essence. That increases the risk of a cliff-edge. We are trying to offer reassurance by providing these reports; as I said, I will reflect on my noble friend’s comments.

My response to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, is that I too am thankful for the conversation we have had. It is exactly the kind of conversation that helps because, given his experience, it aids an informed debate. I want to clarify my response about what we will report back to the Constitution Committee: this will be specifically on the Trade Bill, not on the future. However, I have said on the Floor of the House that we are open to views and we will be coming back with detailed proposals. The noble Lord commented on different ways that one can get negotiating leverage. We are always looking for negotiating leverage; sometimes it is really effective and sometimes not so much. But I take his point that we should be thinking about all the things we can do to add to that.

We have already shared some views with regard to future trade agreements. I am open to hearing views from all Members around the House about what our approach should be. Given all the elements of oversight and scrutiny that we have put in place for these trade continuity agreements, I hope that I can reassure the House and would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, it has been a very good debate. Most of the interchange has been on the latter part, on Amendment 101, but we have made some interesting discoveries, there is food for thought, and the main points are very clear. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Trade Barriers (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed introduction to the SI. I agree almost entirely with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and will follow a number of his points.

I am intrigued by this SI. The noble Baroness was right to point out that it does not do what the other SIs are trying to do, which is to replicate in a UK context what is currently happening because of our membership of the EU. I do not quite follow the logic. We are considering these SIs today in such large numbers because they transpose whereas this SI dismantles. The Government’s argument is that we cannot amend it but we can dismantle it. I do not get the logic of that. It seems that the Government could not do anything about it because anything they wanted to do would require primary legislation. That rather suggests that the Trade Bill, which is in limbo, is not appropriate for that. However, it seems to me to fit entirely within the parameters of the Trade Bill. I understand what the noble Baroness is saying but I do not get where we are going.

My second complaint is that the figures I have do not square with the figures that the noble Baroness used. I have just looked at the list of trade barriers which are currently reported to the Commission and, on a quick count, there appear to be about 1,000—there are 116 in agriculture and fisheries alone. If you count them by country—which I can do even as I speak—you will find that many of them are interesting countries, including the USA, which have a substantial number of trade barriers.

I am hearing a different story from the other side of the Dispatch Box about a pathetic structure which is hardly used and has industry turning away in droves. As the numbers show, however, that is not what seems to be happening; there are live cases covering a range of issues that play to this question of non-tariff barriers. It seems rather odd that we are trying to dismantle it. Those are my opening points. It is a system which the Government have taken against. They have decided in principle, for reasons I do not follow, that it would be much better if we were not part of the TBR scheme, or any TBR scheme, as we leave the EU, if we have to, on 29 March.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, there are clearly issues about trade barriers and how we are going to resolve them. Surely it must be the objective of the Government to make sure that we have a robust system in place to support our businesses and workers, who will otherwise be affected badly by countries which have decided, for reasons best known to themselves, that barriers should be erected. Given the new world order, in which might is right and where protections and tariffs are rife, we verge on the prospect of a very dangerous set of trade wars. It therefore must be appropriate for the UK Government to think hard about this, and it is not obvious that the right way to do it is to dismantle something that has some merit.

Why would the Government decide to replace the present statutory scheme, without formal consultation or proper notification, with a non-statutory reporting mechanism, which seems at its heart to simply rely on emails sent to local ambassadors in the hope that they will be able to do something about it? That does not seem to pass the test of a serious approach to supporting exporting.

I am intrigued why this responsibility—which clearly is not the flavour of the month within the department—is not given, to be beefed up and made more effective, to one of the two bodies that the Government will rely on if the Trade Bill ever goes forward. The Trade Remedies Authority deals with exactly these issues. Why does it not have this responsibility? If there is some doubt about whether it has the range or the skills to do it, the CMA will also be looking, through its state aid function, at similar areas. There is a perfectly good way of taking on this responsibility outside the department. Taking it outside the Department for Trade will give hope to those industries that do not naturally relate to BEIS or other departments such as Agriculture that the new body will set up expertise.

The Minister said that feedback on the effectiveness of the trade barriers regulatory system has been mixed. Without a formal impact statement being available—or maybe an informal one, as we have heard in other SIs—and without knowing what an adequate definition of “mixed” is, there are rather confusing messages coming back. “Mixed” does not mean a unanimity of views, so I take it that there were some dissenting voices. Would it not be sensible to set out clearly what the objective of the trade barriers system should be, what system is required to countermand these things, and to set up a proper consultation to come up with a solution that will command the support of those who have to be involved in it?

The argument seems also to rely on the fact that even though there is this system, it does not achieve very much and has rarely been used. The information I have—I do not know whether it is true—is that when the Confederation of European Paper Industries lodged a complaint that measures imposed by Turkey on the imports of certain varieties of paper were inconsistent with both the WTO and the EU-Turkey customs arrangements, Turkey immediately withdrew the unfair measures because of possible action through the statutory system. Even though it does not have a set of sanctions or a court behind it, the fact that this was formal and statutory-based was sufficient to get action. I do not understand why what might be a developing, long-term programme will be abandoned when the UK might have need of it.

If we are to get rid of it, what about the things that are present and still of value? The Minister did not give any detail. There is a market access advisory committee which monitors arrangements and puts forward recommendations, and there are lists published. Who will do that when we move into this new, semi-informal system? In particular, how will we organise in the UK the variable geometry that arises when different departments have responsibilities here? I do not think the issues that will be affecting Defra—such as the transport of live animals—will be in any way cognate with some of the other issues that have been raised. How will that be managed? In particular, in the future we will have a situation where the devolved Administrations—Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland if ever re-formed—will have direct trade responsibilities. How will their complaints be organised? Will that be done on an informal basis, and has that been cleared with the devolved Administrations? I suspect that they will have concerns about that. While we are on the topic of consultations, in the absence of a properly constituted market access advisory committee, where in the system will representatives, consumers, trade unions and businesses be able to feed in views and advice about this non-statutory system? Will this be done in some informal way, through Facebook perhaps?

The trade barriers regulations are only one area of EU legislation that deal with trade barriers and dumping. This SI before the House is part of a process, so where are the other pieces of EU legislation that deal with dumping and other matters? Specifically, what about Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 about protection against dumped imports and Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 on protection against subsidised imports? Can we expect those, and, if so, roughly what is the timescale?

There is also a transitional issue. There are a number of complaints apparently already in the system from the UK. What will happen to those if they have not been completed by 29 March 2019 and we have to leave the EU with no deal? What happens if there is a transition period? These are two separate issues. I put it to the Minister that the department should be issuing advice about those currently engaged. Even though they are small numbers, the issues are substantial.

I end by suggesting to the Minister that, rather than revoking the regulation, it might have been a good idea to make a greater effort to investigate whether the current system was truly effective and whether the fact that the statutory element was not used very often was a sign that it was working rather well, rather than the opposite. I generally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on this: this SI is somewhat undercooked.

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your contributions today. This has been an interesting debate in a particular area and I will try my best to cover all the points that were made. I start with the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, about why we are revoking. Essentially it is because, as I laid out in the briefing, there is a very complex process to submit and all it requires the Commission to do is to investigate and produce a report—it has no teeth or requirement to solve anything. What is the logic of revoking rather than amending? The amendment, as I said, concerns primary legislation—that is our advice. When you look at amending to create primary legislation with the force of just creating a report, you wonder why you would do that. Many countries have exclusively non-statutory approaches, including Australia and New Zealand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I understand the point the Minister is making, although it was not really at the heart of what I asked. It would be helpful if she could explain what would be the difference. She talked about the informal ways, but let us take the Turkey example. As I understand it, that was properly documented, sent in, appropriately registered, taken up by the European Union and was formally there. Therefore, it is the threat—rather than the practice of it—that the EU might take a range of sanctions and not necessarily just do a report that seems to have caused the change of heart in Turkey. In the new system, what is it—emails to the ambassador?

[Baroness Fairhead]

Definitely not. What happens when this goes to the MAAC—Market Access Advisory Committee—is similar to what will happen when it goes to the market access team, which is the new team set up inside the DIT. All concerns and market access issues can be raised on an online site and, as I tried to explain, they will be reported on. The concerns will go back to businesses and particular sectors and will also come before this House. So within the bounds of commercial confidentiality, the concerns will be logged as specifically as possible. In fact, it will be similar to the current approach: the areas will be reported on and will not just stay in the ether.

European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Economic Partnership Agreements and Trade Agreement) (Eastern and Southern Africa States, Southern African Development Community States, Ghana and Ecuador) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fairhead]

We are trying to make these countries long-term trading partners. We provide support to help build and encourage investment, and it is likely that that will increase the processing capability of some of their plants, and will, therefore, potentially create competition for some of our companies. In a sense, however, that is what we are trying to do: to bring up trade. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, trade matters and can lift up nations. It is not about a single point in time; we are trying to encourage investment to help these nations move up and become long-term, mature trading partners that we can continue to deal with in the future.

I turn now to another area raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan: the question of regional integration. The EU has been one of the biggest supporters of African integration and efforts to deliver a continent-wide agreement. The EU has aligned the EPAs with the existing economic and customs union, seeing that as the best way, according to the preferences of EPA partners. It is clear that they are numerous and overlapping, not by the design of the EU but because we have worked with the flow of what it has done. To try to support regional integration, we are encouraging the African states to extend to each other the same level of liberalisation. This is to make sure that they aim to prevent increased imports from the EU displacing imports from neighbouring countries.

The issue has not been raised—I can hear it coming—but the most-favoured nation clause that might result from that is specifically designed to ensure that it applies only to major economies, and that excludes most of the African nations. We are genuinely trying to work with the flow of regional integration.

On the point raised about the AfCFTA by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, it is a cross- African CTA that is being worked on and, as she will know, it has taken a while. We will continue to support the efforts to do that but in the meantime we believe that EPAs are a way of allowing those countries to progress.

As to the economic benefits, because these are EPAs they are asymmetric in favour of the developing nations and that is why we are seeing limited benefits in the short and medium term to the EU countries, including the UK.

The noble Lords, Lord Haskel, Lord Judd and Lord Stevenson, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, raised the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was helpful in laying out what the current scrutiny is under the EU system. In taking forward the existing trade agreements, we have said that we will try to replicate them to provide as much continuity as possible. In the interests of providing parliamentary scrutiny, we will make sure that a report is prepared outlining any changes that have been made and provide opportunities for debates in both Houses to allow Members to comment on those change before ratification under the normal procedure. So we have tried to address the issue of trade continuity agreements.

This SI is not about future trade policy nor about our future scrutiny arrangements. As I said in my opening remarks, an Oral Statement was made in the other place by the Secretary of State, who laid out some of the ways in which we will engage. There will be a 14-week engagement across civil society, with unions and businesses, and that consultation is taking place on four potential free trade agreements. We will then create an outline approach which, again, will be made public and available to Parliament. Through that process, reports and accounts will be laid before both Houses.

In this House there are a number of Lords committees but none with a specific remit on trade policy. It is not for me to determine for the House of Lords what committee would be appropriate but, as I said, I am keen to talk to noble Lords and hear their ideas. At the moment we are working out our proposals but, ultimately, if any new committee were established it would be for the House of Lords to make its own decision on what that would be.

On the question of involving civil society on these existing EPAs, as I have said, we are continuing to engage actively with civil society. However, under the existing EU approach, there is a joint civil society engagement which takes place under the existing SADC EPA to allow those states’ approach to an effective implementation of the EPA, and it is on the implementation side where that civil society involvement is continuing.

I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara—trade matters. We need to get that right. We remain committed to engaging further with Parliament as we develop an independent trade policy. We will continue to work with stakeholders across the UK to ensure that our policy delivers for this great nation.

I encourage noble Lords to support the UK’s ratification of these agreements, which will demonstrate to these countries the importance to the UK of agreements with them, as well as our commitment to development and global prosperity.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

It would be conventional for the Minister to persuade me to withdraw my amendment, if she could. Otherwise, the implication is that the Minister is quite happy for it to be moved.

[Baroness Fairhead]

I would be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am sorry about that bit of theatre. It just makes the point that the structure has to be right or we cannot get to where we want to be: a mutually agreeable situation.

I thank all speakers for participating in the debate. As I said, the aim all along was to have a debate on issues on which we agree. More about this issue unites than divides us, and it is good to have a chance of an open debate on issues of such importance. In fact, it was a special treat to have such expertise and experience represented by the noble Lords who spoke; we were able to pick up on some important points that I am sure we will want to take away and think about when we come to read Hansard.

In her contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, used the examples of Kenya and Tanzania. She made all the points that had been picked up elsewhere about the difficulties for two countries with common boundaries yet completely different profiles on where they want to get to as societies with different experiences and opportunities. As she said, the present arrangements are unlikely to result in regional harmony, let alone the growth in economic activity that we all want.

I will read the Minister’s second speech in Hansard quite closely. She used “we” quite a lot in relation to the way in which these treaties have developed. It is quite unusual these days to find Ministers of Her Majesty’s Government talking as if they were speaking on behalf of the organisation with which we are all involved—the EU—but I take it that she used that word in the sense of the EU trying to achieve certain aims and objectives. That may be a small point, but I enjoyed it. The EU has done some good work in this area; despite the criticisms we have all heard, there is something of value at the end of this process. We should recognise that.

However, the points made by my noble friend Lord Judd are very important. We must not fall into the trap of assuming that some sort of “Made in Brussels”—I do not mean that in a negative sense—mode of liberalisation is the right one for the range of countries we have to deal with. It must be a question of fitting what is appropriate to where the various areas and countries are. I take the point that, by working with the existing arrangements in Africa and South America, there is a better chance of those arrangements working and bringing us the benefits that we are looking for. On the other hand, it is clear from the comments I read out, which other noble Lords have mentioned, that there is some dispute about that. Again, that makes the point that this issue is important and we must not let it go by default; we must engage with it in some way. Even if we go down the routes being offered to us, the question of who assesses that and under what terms of reference—for example, what success looks like—is uncomfortable for those who spoke tonight. Perhaps the Minister could take that away.

Moving on to the future, I do not want to sound too critical but, although there was a welcome sense that engagement with Parliament is an important aspect of the work going on in the department, I did not get the impression that any of the proposals made by either myself or other noble Lords—such as my noble friend Lord Haskel on behalf of the committees he is involved in—reached out in a way that fits with the purpose of the amendment. We may need to go through the Trade Bill and pick up the points there, because there are amendments down that would certainly open up that opportunity. To make the point more fully, if all we are being offered is a bit more information, a bit more consultation at arm’s length, a bit more engagement with civic society, but no real sharing of the process of agreeing and moving forward the agenda, I do not think that fits where we are in terms of where people want to be on trade. Trade is important because it matters, and if it matters then people need to find an echo of that.

Although I mentioned them in my speech, I did not hear the Minister talk about the devolved Administrations. Clearly, it is not her departmental brief to do that, but if we do not get that right, we will all just go into a brick wall at great speed and it will not work. These matters will be devolved to these Administrations and they will have their own views. There has to be some structure, some constitutional arrangement, which gives them confidence that their justifiable and important issues will be raised as part of the process.

It may be that a Lords committee is the right solution, but I do not think that takes the trick. I will argue very forcibly in the Trade Bill that we need to think harder about what powers are given, to whom, and for what purpose, and what process will help to engage the country thereafter. There is a frustration that the lack of information and movement on this will build up. If I can leave the Minister with this, my feeling is that you cannot leave this too long. It may be that, if everything goes smoothly with the Prime Minister’s proposals, there will be a period of two years, or possibly longer, in which we can work these things out, but there is a lot of interest and expectation now and I think it would be a mistake not to recognise that going forward.

With that, and with the Minister’s strong request that I withdraw my amendment ringing in my ears, I beg leave to withdraw.

St Petersburg International Economic Forum

Debate between Baroness Fairhead and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 30th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fairhead]

In terms of our stance on Russia, and in response to actions in Syria and Ukraine and the Salisbury attack, we are trying to show that this matter is a real threat to a rules-based international order. We are trying to send a clear message that those actions are unacceptable and illegal and to give a calibrated response that shows how unhappy we are with them, while continuing to engage in other areas and support businesses that take part in sanctions-compliant activity. We think that is the right way to do it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to offer the Minister some help. Perhaps she should just argue that the cost of going will be too high. After all, a place at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum will cost $8,600. I have looked through the 36 pages of the business programme, seven pages of the sporting programme and 78 pages of the cultural programme; it is quite a feast of pleasure, I must say. If she is interested in culture and so on, I would have thought there was a case for doing that.

More seriously, reading deep into the programme, why are we not sending people to the following sessions, which seem very important: “A Recent History of Blockchain”, which has apparently caused a sensation in Russia and for which expert advice is available, and “Exporting Trust: Building Safe Global Digital Infrastructure”, which is about what Russia can offer? Do these really not attract Dr Fox?

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank the noble Lord for his advice and help. SPIEF is a major event—143 companies attended last year—so he is right: the programme is very full. I am happy to say that almost all major UK companies will be present, as will our DIT staff and ambassador, as I said. It is one of a number of our interactions because engagement has to continue. We have put this guidance in place at a bilateral ministerial level. Our policy is very clear: engage, but beware. That is the right calibrated, nuanced approach. We are supporting companies in their engagement and we absolutely believe in supporting the digital economy, because that is where the heart of our new technology will reach global markets.