Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, has a question that he would like to put to the Minister.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I am perplexed because, in her response, the Minister said that she expected the announcement made yesterday by the Office for Students on funding for the arts and creative subjects would open up many more such courses. The report that I have received is that high-cost subsidy funding is to be cut by half, with effect from September this year. How on earth could that open up more courses? Universities are saying that they may even have to close down courses. Defunding cannot produce more courses, or have I misunderstood the noble Baroness?

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 26 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 100. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 27: Commencement

Amendment 100

Moved by

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th July 2021 Lords Chamber

Clause 17 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 72. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 18: List of relevant providers

Amendment 72

Moved by

Covid-19: Education Settings

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, for their thanks to the hundreds of thousands of teachers and support staff, and for the work of parents who have been home-educating during this time, to see our children come to the end of term.

To deal first with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about why we have not left all this until the end of term, the Government made it clear that schools should be in line with other public health restrictions, so that they were neither more nor less restricted, based on the scientific evidence. The release of restrictions in line with step 4 is the point at which to change the situation for schools. Also, as the noble Lord later outlined correctly, there is no one date on which schools break up, so that would have meant different dates in different parts of the country. I believe that schools start breaking up tomorrow and that the finish date is 28 July. The fact that this is in line with step 4 will mean that it is a consistent date with the other restrictions being released in our country.

Regarding the situation of school attendance as of 1 July, 83.4% of children were actually in school at that time. On the levels of disease that we are seeing in the population, that is why the department Ministers, Nick Gibb and Gillian Keegan, wrote to schools and colleges last Monday to outline the situation on school activities over the summer—summer schools and other out-of-school settings that use their buildings. Testing for those purposes will continue over the summer, but most pupils, who will have been out of school, will not be subject to testing over the summer. That is one of the main reasons why we have made it clear to schools that they should set up the ATS at the beginning of the autumn term and that, up to three days before term begins, they can begin the two lateral flow tests for secondary age pupils, primary staff and secondary staff. They will not have been tested over the summer period, of course. This is the action that we are taking to take account of the level of disease in the population at the moment. There are obviously some controls, and we have given guidance to schools and colleges that they should leave in place the regular cleaning, handwashing and ensuring that inside spaces are well ventilated, leaving doors and windows open as appropriate.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised school transport. Again, we are bringing that advice in line with the situation as it will be for the population in England on 19 July, which is that it will be a matter of choice whether to use face coverings on public transport. That will be the same for dedicated school transport.

On the specific questions that the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, raised about the daily contact testing pilot, over 200 secondary schools and colleges participated in the independently monitored, voluntary trial, which was given approval by Public Health England’s independent research ethics and governance group. The trial concluded only on 25 June, so its findings are expected shortly. Those findings will need to be evaluated before any decisions can be made by government on how DCT can be used, if at all.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about vaccination infrastructure, no decisions have been made yet on whether young people from the ages of 12 to 17 should be routinely offered a Covid-19 vaccination or how this should be implemented. The MHRA has licensed two vaccines for that age group, but then it is a separate decision for the JCVI about whether there should be routine vaccination. We have asked the JCVI to advise whether it should be offered to young people aged 12 to 17; we will be guided by those experts’ advice and provide an update in due course.

We have already confirmed that exams and vocational and technical qualification assessments will go ahead next year. We recognise that students taking those examinations have had significant disruption to their education and we are considering with Ofqual what we need to do to ensure that the grades students receive for exams next year are fair. We understand the need for the education sector to have certainty and we will announce further details shortly.

Regarding the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on the prevalence of the disease, the strategy is clear that those who have been most at risk from the disease will have been offered the vaccination and a large proportion of the population will be double-vaccinated. On his specific questions about ventilation, we are doing a pilot study with Public Health England and SAGE to look at CO₂ levels in our classrooms. Obviously, when we have the results of that we will update your Lordships’ House. It is still within the guidance to schools about how they should manage those spaces, but we envisage that music lessons in all forms, assemblies and collective religious worship will be back in schools without restrictions.

We also want to give schools and children back their freedoms, in line with those that will be given to the population in step 4. In terms of the risk to the population as a whole, those who are most at risk from the disease will have been offered the double vaccination. We have of course asked schools to have contingency plans and have updated the guidance on them, should there be an outbreak either in that school or in an area of the country where there is a particularly high prevalence of disease, outlining whether further restrictions should be in place. There will be individual circumstances around whether bubbles or masks are reintroduced, but all that is to be balanced with the particular circumstances of any outbreak, and bearing in mind that we now know the effects that having to be in bubbles or wear masks has on children’s education.

One of the few silver linings of the cloud that has been over us in Covid—I must take issue with the concluding statement of the noble Lord, Lord Storey—and something for which we can be grateful is that the evidence has been consistently clear that overwhelmingly children do not get this disease seriously, unlike the older members of the population. That is why the vaccination programme has gone down the age ranges, including in the beginning NHS and social care staff. We must be really grateful for that, and we look forward to seeing our children back in school without these restrictions as of 19 July.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I call the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I join the noble Baroness in thanking the staff at the school she mentioned. We know that many have gone above and beyond, particularly in supporting disadvantaged children in their community. Dropping food parcels and workbooks at the door has been pretty commonplace for many of our school staff, which is amazing.

Upon the return of schools, attendance has been compulsory but we have given specific guidance to schools if they have pupils absent due to parents or carers being concerned about Covid, or about their own health if they are clinically extremely vulnerable. In fact, there is a particular X to mark in the reasons for non-attendance. We hope that schools have encouraged parents to keep their children on the school roll in that situation, because we are concerned to see the rise in the numbers of children being electively home-educated in these circumstances—obviously, many parents do that job really well. On breakfast clubs, I think we have provided funding of £24 million through Magic Breakfast and other charities to deliver breakfasts. Over this summer holiday, in addition to the summer schools there will be, as there have been since Easter, holiday and activity clubs operating in every local authority area for disadvantaged families.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, all questions have now been asked.

House adjourned at 7.19 pm.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the next business is the first day of Committee on the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. Participants who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.

Clause 1: Local skills improvement plans

Amendment 1

Moved by

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Baroness Henig Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on her outstanding maiden speech, and welcome her to the House of Lords. I know she has made a huge contribution to the higher education sector, most recently and presently at Lancaster University. Her expertise and experience will be of great value in our future debates. I look forward to working with her on this Bill in the forth- coming weeks.

Who could argue with the principal aims of the Bill—to transform post-16 education and training, to boost skills and productivity, to involve employers more closely in course planning and provision, to get more people into work and to launch a new lifetime skills guarantee? What is there not to like? But let me just stop there a minute. We are learning that this Government speak in headlines—ringing headlines that are echoed in the press and social media—but then frequently there is little or no follow-through.

It is important to make it clear that to deliver the transformation that is needed in post-16 provision, a transformation which it is quite clear from the debate so far that we all support, to deliver the objectives of this Bill, we must acknowledge that significant changes are needed, changes to structures, attitudes and funding. On these crucial areas, the Bill is largely silent.

I have been involved in post-16 education in various ways, having served as a governor of an FE and an adult education college. Post-16 education, especially 16-19 education, is incredibly fragmented. There are 11-18 grammar schools, faith schools, 11-18 academies, comprehensives, sixth-form colleges, FE colleges and, very occasionally, tertiary colleges. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that putting employers at the heart of the post-16 skills system relates to their relationship with the local FE college only, but what of the other units providing post-16 education? Will adult education colleges be involved? Will other education providers be drawn into collaboration and, if so, how will this happen?

To be successful, local plans must bring together all schools and colleges in an area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Black, so vividly reminded us in her story about the schools working together with the college in the Lancaster area. Employer groups need to include such major employers as the NHS, local government and local universities. Can the Minister clarify the intentions here because unless there is significant collaboration in local areas across the area, the aims of this Bill will never be achieved?

There is also a huge issue around parity of esteem, and the Minister pointed this out in her opening remarks. Parental choices and student preferences have not changed that much in the past 50 years. Leaving aside public schools—although they cast a long shadow—grammar schools and 11-18 faith schools remain very popular with parents, followed by 11-18 local academies and sixth-form colleges. I regret to tell noble Lords this, but in the local areas that I know well, students are not clamouring to go to the local FE college, even when they want to pursue courses in computer games technology or basic health skills.

I was talking to my 18-year old grandson about this issue recently. He attended a sixth-form college in the north-east. I asked him whether any of his former schoolmates went to the local FE college. His reply was swift and telling: “Only if they couldn’t get in anywhere else.” That showed me that attitudes and perceptions have not changed very much. We all know the problem, dating back to the Education Act 1944, that technical schools and technical education never developed as envisaged, and that in the past two decades all the emphasis has been on getting a university place, not on developing practical technical expertise or getting technical qualifications.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, has been working incredibly hard in recent years to change this situation, but the difficulties that he has encountered show the magnitude of the problems that we are still facing in this area. It will take great effort and a huge transformation of technical provision throughout the country to change perceptions. It is something that we must do, but it will not be easy, and it requires long-term investment.

The Bill is silent for the most part on funding issues, yet we know that one reason why FE colleges have struggled in recent years and have had to cut courses and narrow curriculums is lack of funding and constant cuts to budget. Post-16 education funding is at present not fair and not rational for all the competing institution. My noble friend Lord Layard pointed this out very clearly.

If the Government mean what they are saying about wanting to improve opportunities and boost skills, particularly among disadvantaged students, they must commit to long-term funding, not just for post-16 FE colleges but in a whole range of social welfare provision, to enable poorer, more disadvantaged and unemployed individuals to access courses, train and retrain and become more skilled.

Among the briefings sent to me for this debate was a sobering statistic that 13 million adults in this country—that is nearly one in four people over 18—lack level 2 qualifications, equivalent to GCSEs. Some 9 million adults lack functional literacy and numeracy skills. The Bill has a lot of heavy lifting to do, and it will need major investment over many years if it is to be more than aspirational. We want it to be successful, and I await the evidence in Committee that the investment will be forthcoming.

Education Settings: Wider Opening

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to join the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in his desire to welcome everyone back to education. It is the Department for Education’s desire and ambition to see all children back in school, when the scientific evidence allows. We are very concerned about the learning disadvantage gap that experts tell us is probably growing during this period.

As in many other countries, schools have been open throughout this period for vulnerable children and the children of critical workers. The Secretary of State made it clear in the other place that we need a plan for beyond the summer. We are working with the stakeholders that have been outlined to ensure that we can deliver the catch-up across the summer and into the next academic year. In fact, local REACT teams are working jointly with redeployed Ofsted workers, department officials and local authorities to ensure that we are in touch with what is happening on the ground, both locally in schools and in children’s social services departments in councils. Indeed, as of Monday, year 10 and year 12 pupils will be back in school for some form of face-to-face contact, with a maximum of 25% being in school at any one time. We are looking at all of the options for targeted support through the summer and beyond, as I said.

On premises, there are thousands of varieties of school buildings across the country. Some of them do not have the outdoor space that would be appropriate for temporary buildings such as Portakabins. We are grateful to the independent sector, however, which has worked closely with the state sector in many areas; we welcome those collaborations.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised concerns about the early years sector. I am happy to say that, as of Thursday last week, 48% of those settings were open. Over the next year, it is planned that the £3.6 billion of early years entitlement will be paid to that sector, regardless of the children who attend. It is clear from Public Health England advice that normal education settings do not need personal protective equipment and that a very limited supply is needed for circumstances where a symptomatic child may be on the premises. Of course, it is different for special schools if they are open and providing care akin to medical care. Only in those very limited circumstances—which education settings can manage through their own supply chains, or, if needs be, can approach the local resilience forum—do they need to think about personal protective equipment.

The early years sector has a blend of incomes. The sector’s loss of private income is one reason why the comprehensive schemes made available by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are open to the sector, on the basis that salaries that they pay were previously paid using income from private sources. The sector can go to the job retention scheme or apply for a business interruption loan and, if they are eligible for small business rate relief or rural rate relief, they are eligible for the £10,000 small business grant.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that we are very concerned about disadvantaged children and children in care. We are working with all the sector’s stakeholder groups. We based our guidance on the PHE guidance, outlining to schools the measures that they can take to provide a safe environment in which to learn.

On reception admissions—I thank the noble Lord for his advance notice on this question—we do not anticipate that, as a general rule, children will need to delay their admission to school purely as a consequence of the coronavirus outbreak. However, where parents genuinely believe that delaying admission is right for their summer-born child, we expect admissions authorities to give careful consideration to the needs of that child. Admissions authorities must provide for the admission of all children in the September following their fourth birthday. However, parents cannot be required to send their children to full-time school before they reach the compulsory age.

As the noble Lord mentioned, we are deeply concerned about the attainment gap, which has been narrowing since 2011. That is why we have now made available the Oak National Academy for remote learning, which offers 140 lessons a week. The noble Lord mentioned the BBC. In the week commencing 11 May, there were 5 million users. This is not an insubstantial resource and we thank the BBC for making it available. This is why we have prioritised disadvantaged students in year 10 as well as care leavers and children with social workers for access to the over 200,000 remote devices that we have purchased and for which delivery is in train.

I am pleased to say that yesterday the Prime Minister announced an additional £63 million of funding for local authorities over the summer, as they are best placed to know who might be in acute need of food over that period. Some £9 million has been made available for summer provision; there will be holiday clubs, building on the programme of 2018 and 2019, that can be accessed.

During this period, routine Ofsted inspections have been suspended. That is why Ofsted has been redeployed in other areas. It can still inspect settings when safeguarding has been raised. GCSEs, A-levels, SATs, the two year-old assessment and the assessment at the end of the early years foundation stage have all been suspended; no performance tables will be published this year. However, this Government stand by their ambition that every child in this country should have a world-class education and were right to have an ambition to bring all children back to school. It is sad, particularly for those children, that in the circumstances of the scientific evidence that has not been possible.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I emphasise that it is 30 minutes, not the 20 minutes that was on the Order Paper. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.

Trade Bill

Baroness Henig Excerpts

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will also speak in support of Amendment 4, which I have put my name to.

I thank the Minister and her civil servants for meeting me to discuss my amendment outside this Chamber. She has been incredibly generous with her time, and I very much appreciate that. It is thanks to the meeting with the Minister and the constructive criticism from noble Lords in Committee that I have tabled this much refined amendment on Report.

The sole purpose of my amendment is to give legislative effect to the Government’s own policy, which, as I understand it, is that the Bill will be used only to roll over existing free trade agreements that we enjoy as a member of the EU so that we can continue to enjoy them after we leave. Rolling over means no renegotiation, changes in terms or reduction in standards. My amendment is a way of giving effect to the Government’s own policy. I am not looking to cause trouble here, nor to undermine the Government—for a change.

The problem with the Bill as it currently stands is that it does not give effect to this policy. The Clause 2 powers are much broader than they need to be, and would allow for a significant undermining of precious protections for our environment, workers’ rights, food safety and a whole host of other provisions. Clause 2(1) allows an appropriate authority to,

“make such provision as the authority considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement”.

Clause 2(2) and (3) restrict the regulation-making power only to implement agreements with signatories which are already signatory to a trade agreement with the EU, but that is the only limit on the power. There is nothing to say that the terms of an agreement have to be the same or similar to the existing EU trade agreements. There is no reference to protecting standards and no limit on renegotiation, nor on implementing a totally new trade agreement. There is not even a time limit, or sunset clause, on how long into the future these powers can be used. Hundreds of years from now, a Government could implement a completely new trade agreement on the sole condition that the partner country had a deal with the EU before Brexit. If this sounds ridiculous, it is because it is. Clause 2 grants Ministers an incredibly broad, almost uncurtailed power to enact whatever trade agreements they negotiate.

At Question Time today, chlorinated chicken was mentioned with regard to trading with the USA. A Bryan Smith got in touch with me to say, “As a microbiologist, I can tell you for sure that washing chicken carcasses in bleach does not kill all salmonella. It forces the bacteria to form cysts which can hatch later. It is much harder to detect in this form, so it hides the problem”. I used to joke that it was just as well that chickens were chlorinated because at least they were clean. In fact, they do not now use a chlorinated wash; they use other substances—for example, peracetic acid. This is an organic peroxide—a colourless liquid—and it can be highly corrosive. The practice is not dangerous in itself but it might hide poor farming hygiene practices. Other animal welfare issues are very concerning, such as stocking density, sow stalls, animal transport, antibiotic use, veal crates, battery cages, debeaking, tail docking and castration. We could be subjecting our food to these practices and people to whom I talk outside this House are absolutely horrified.

The Minister told the Committee that none of this mattered because the European Union (Withdrawal) Act brought all European standards and rules into UK law. They say that everything is fine; everything is protected. This is completely undermined by Clause 2(5)(a) which allows the Minister, by regulations, to modify,

“retained direct EU legislation or primary legislation that is retained EU law”.

So the Government, having incorporated all EU law into the withdrawal Act, would have the unrestricted power to tear it all up in order to implement whatever terms they agreed in these trade deals. The Government’s assertion that the withdrawal Act resolves all my concerns could be correct only if Clause 2(5)(a) were removed from the Bill or curtailed by restrictions, such as those in my amendment.

The truth is that we are not protected by retained EU law at all because the Bill allows the Government to scrap it in the interests of trade. The only protection left is the assertion from the Government that they will not use the powers in the Bill to undermine our prevailing standards. This is not good enough. If the Government are not going to use the powers, as they have promised they will not, my amendment will not make the slightest difference. It would cause a problem for Ministers only if they go against their promises and try to undermine prevailing standards when incorporating a trade agreement. We must not allow this to even be an option.

I have tried to draft my amendment in the simplest possible terms. This is for my own reference and not because this House in any way lacks understanding. The amendment uses as reference all the standards which apply immediately before exit day—the existing standards on which current trade deals operate. Some trade deals might have higher standards than others, so my amendment is designed to allow whatever level exists in each specific trade deal to be rolled over. The Government have a problem only if there is any reduction in standards in the rolling-over process. This is a much more restricted approach than I would have liked. Amendment 4 expands on it and could be much more powerful. I have gone to great lengths to develop an approach that can be supported by noble Lords across your Lordships’ House, and even be accepted by the Government. Personally, I should like much higher standards, but I am compromising here, which is not easy.

The Bill gives far too much freedom to Ministers to change the law and undermine our precious standards on a whole range of issues. The Government’s promises and ambitions will easily give way to the harsh reality of trade negotiations. By that point, it will be too late for Parliament to reject whatever deals are made. Your Lordships’ House must put a backstop on the Government’s promises, so that these trade deals cannot be renegotiated in a way which would undermine any of our prevailing standards. My amendment will achieve this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 3 and 4 and speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. We had a wide-ranging debate in Committee about standards and Members from across the House argued that we should not allow standards to fall in a whole range of important areas, as outlined in the amendment. The Government’s reply was to agree in principle. The Minister said at the time that the Government were committed to high standards and that they were the right policy for the country, but that they should not be written in the Bill. When asked why not, she was unable to give a convincing reply.

It is essential that we take this opportunity to ensure that existing standards in a number of areas cannot be lowered as a result of the Bill and that that is made explicit in the Bill. One reason for that comes down to the issue of trust. In 2017, the Trade Secretary promised that the United Kingdom would not lower the standards. He said:

“We have made very clear we are not going to see reductions in our standards as we move forward, partly because British consumers wouldn’t stand for it”.


But at the same time, the self-same Trade Secretary has prioritised a trade deal with the United States. It is no secret that the prime aim on the United States’ side will be to negotiate lower food standards with the United Kingdom to enable their food products to flood in to the UK. There is no secret that that is their ambition.

Asked about this last weekend, when asked about food standards, the Trade Secretary replied:

“The question is not about safety”.


This is a bigger issue than the safety or not of a way of preparing food, which is also subject to rules at the World Trade Organization: it is about the decisions we make between the EU and United States approach to regulation. It is about the barriers to trade that that may impose, the impact on our producers and, most of all, the level of trust over trade policy.

The absolute worst way to make significant changes would be through the power under the Bill, because that would cause huge resentment and distrust of United Kingdom trade policy, which would damage our long-term prospects of achieving consensus and wide support for trade deals in future. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, points out, under the Bill, the Government could make any change they liked to any regulations as long as it was relevant to implementing a trade agreement and that tariff changes are handled by another piece of legislation. Let us take the much cited chlorinated chicken, which she mentioned, beloved of the United States.

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, surely the point is that the Bill relates only to agreements in place before exit day. There is no agreement on chlorinated chicken or with the United States, so any such argument is irrelevant to the Bill.

[Baroness Henig]

The noble Lord is clearly prescient, because I am just about to cover the very point he raises. As I said, let us take the question of chlorinated chicken. There is nothing to stop Ministers making that change in implementing existing trade agreements. For example, perhaps Mexico would want us to declare that we will accept chlorinated chicken in return for continuing our trade agreement. There is nothing to stop a country with which we have an existing agreement asking for that in future as a part of the rollover, which is what I think he was asking about. Slightly more far-fetched, perhaps, there may be a change of Minister. Perhaps the current Secretary of State for Transport takes over at trade and makes the change by mistake. Who knows?

That is why it is so important to agree the amendment. Major changes in standards in all these important areas should not be covered under the Bill: they need to be fully discussed in terms of our future trade relationship with the United States and the EU in the light of the terms under which we depart from the European Union and with the involvement of a wide range of businesses, trade associations, producers, consumers and local communities. The Bill should not allow a departure from standards, and that is why I put my name to the amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and thank her, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for their support for the amendment in my name. Since we last met in Committee, there have been two positive developments. One is the fact that the Government have published their report on the implications of no deal for business and trade. The second is the promise to publish the tariffs.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Henig]

5: Clause 3, page 3, line 43, at end insert—
“(5A) A Minister of the Crown must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament during each session of Parliament reporting on the progress made in all negotiations relating to agreements Her Majesty’s Government intends to ratify under this section. (5B) A report under subsection (5A) must include, at a minimum—(a) a summary of proposed changes against the existing agreement,(b) the estimated date for the completion of the negotiations, and(c) the date when the agreement is expected to be laid before Parliament.”

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that my amendment will prove a little more straightforward than the one we have just debated. When the issue of parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements covered by this Bill was discussed in Committee, the Minister made much of the issue of speed. Speed, she argued, was of the essence in rolling over these agreements. She said that the Government were opposed to any detailed scrutiny arrangements which might slow the negotiations down and delay conclusion of the deals. Since then, it has become increasingly clear that, whatever the Government’s intentions, these deals will not be speedily concluded. Indeed, it could be two or three years before they are all finalised. This being the case, we surely need to put in place some clear scrutiny arrangements. At the very least, these should replicate the information that the EU Commission regularly supplied to us. They should keep parliamentarians and, more importantly, businesses and their customers informed about what is being discussed and the timescales envisaged for the conclusion of deals, so that they can plan effectively for the future.

I am sure I am not alone in having been shocked at the level of secrecy imposed by the Department for International Trade with regard to its progress on trade talks during the last 18 months. In 2017, the Secretary of State for International Trade made his much quoted promise about having up to 40 trade deals,

“ready for one second after midnight”,

at the end of March 2019. Businesses would have assumed with some confidence that all was going well and that, in the course of 2018, progress was being made in rolling over the deals. It was only through a leak in the Financial Times in January of this year that we learned that, in fact, only a handful of deals was going to be finalised by the end of March. Not surprisingly, this has caused great consternation among business leaders and companies, great and small. Now we learn, through a second leak—again in the Financial Times—that the Department for International Trade’s consultations with business representatives have been suspended because information was being passed out of the meeting, allegedly in an unauthorised way.

Where is this obsession with secrecy coming from? Is it from the Department for International Trade or from 10 Downing Street? Whatever the source, this cannot be a recipe for successful trade negotiations, either now or in the future. Both Parliament and businesses have a need and a right to know what is being negotiated, what stage discussions have reached, and when they are likely to be concluded. Successful trade negotiations require consensus—from business groups, sectors of industry and wider stakeholders about the interests that are being pursued and the goals that are going to be set. This requires extensive consultation and collaboration between the Executive, Parliament, businesses and stakeholder groups. The reality is that the secrecy demanded by the Department for International Trade is counterproductive to successful trade negotiations, both in relation to those being rolled over and to future deals.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I know that she is an expert in the subject. Does she agree that when the European Union has been conducting trade negotiations with a view to reaching trade agreements with third parties, it has always set very high standards of consultation and transparency, reporting regularly to the European Parliament as well as consulting business interests that might be at stake, trade associations and other potential stakeholders? Does she further agree that it is a terrible pity that the British Government do not seem to be following that excellent example?

[Baroness Henig]

I absolutely agree. That is precisely my concern: that there is an effective scrutiny process in place to replace what we will lose at European level. In later amendments, we shall discuss future arrangements, but my concern is that in the rollover of the existing deals, we have effective scrutiny so that everybody knows where we are in the negotiations.

Parliament and business leaders should not be seen as the enemy from whom important national secrets must be kept, which seems to have been the way things have been going. Our businesses, exporters and trade bodies need to plan. They need to work in tandem with the Government. Of course we accept the need for confidentiality in trade negotiations. We all understand that, but the level of secrecy we have experienced in the past 18 months has been totally counterproductive.

My amendment would put some basic scrutiny arrangements in place to cover the period for which these deals are being rolled over. It enables Parliament, businesses and the wider community to know what stage they have reached and when they may be completed. Reporting once a Session is hardly an onerous requirement on the Executive. After all, our current Session is now nearly two years old. That seems to me a basic requirement for effective parliamentary scrutiny.

I hope that the Minister will tell me that the amendment is unnecessary, as the Government will bring forward something similar at or before Third Reading, but meanwhile I beg to move.

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, for tabling Amendment 5. It gives the House an opportunity to revisit the issue of how the Government will update Parliament on the status of negotiations on the continuity agreements. We enjoyed a useful discussion on this in Committee.

First, let me reiterate that Parliament plays a crucial role in scrutiny of free trade agreements, and we intend that to continue. It is right that Parliament should expect to be updated by the Government. That is why the Government have already informed Parliament on progress of our continuity agreements through a Written Ministerial Statement. As your Lordships will be aware, they have already gone through a process of scrutiny in becoming free trade agreements with the EU.

We have also laid our first free trade agreements for scrutiny in Parliament ahead of ratification, which we believe is the right level of scrutiny, along with their accompanying parliamentary reports and explanatory memoranda, in which we have committed to giving explicit information about any significant changes, should any occur, making clear where they are, and any economic impact, should there be any.

Unfortunately, we cannot give a running commentary on the progress towards signature of our other continuity agreements. We believe that doing so would create a handling risk with our partner countries. Some partner countries may not wish to share such information, and a commitment to do so might prejudice the prospect of a successful negotiation. We are trying to get the best possible outcome for the UK.

However, let me assure the noble Baroness that, as we are aiming for continuity, we do not expect there to be significant changes. I therefore argue that the detailed reporting required by the amendment would be unsuitable for the continuity programme. For the future free trade agreements programme, the Government have committed to publish updates on the conclusion of each substantive negotiating round and to publish an annual report on all future trade agreement negotiation programmes under way. In this way, we will ensure that Parliament is kept fully updated on progress as we pursue new FTAs with partner countries.

Although I understand the desire to know what progress we are making towards transitioning continuity agreements, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, understands the Government’s position and therefore request that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Baroness Fairhead]

My Lords, the engagement we have with civic society, businesses and trade unions will be critical as we develop our future trade agreements, and we will continue those discussions. We have already talked about creating a strategic trade advisory group, which will contain members from civic society, trade unions and business organisations. We have also agreed to have expert bodies, so I hope that will reassure the noble Lord that we are intent on continuing very active engagement.

The difference here is that these are continuity agreements that have already been negotiated and scrutinised through a process, and we are aiming for continuity here. Therefore, we believe that the appropriate level of scrutiny by Parliament is for the Government to bring forward the reports when they have been signed, alongside a detailed report on the changes, if any, and the economic impact. Of course, ratification will be required, and that will go through scrutiny in the normal way.

There is a very different position on future free trade agreements, on which I wholeheartedly take on board the points made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Henig]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. She talked about a “running commentary”, and I do not think that is what my amendment sought. It sought a report once every Session, which, I respectfully suggest, is not quite the same thing. As has been said, these are continuity agreements. What I—and, I am sure, many other Members of this House—seek is continuity: when we are no longer members of the EU, we want the same level of information as we were getting from the EU. We seek a level of information; we do not want a dilution of processes, with more meagre information and more difficulty in finding out what is going on. That is what lies at the heart of this.

I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I do not propose to pursue the matter at this stage—but I am sure that I and many other Members of this House will keep the Government’s feet to the fire on the issue of getting hold of information and making sure that everybody, particularly businesses, commercial organisations and people throughout the country, know where we are and what is going on. They should not have to rely on leaks from newspapers for their information. Having got that off my chest, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Trade Bill

Baroness Henig Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Henig]

20: Clause 3, page 3, line 39, at end insert—
“( ) A report under subsection (3) must be drawn up by an organisation independent of Her Majesty’s Government and must include an economic analysis of the impact of the changed agreement.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 20 and speak to Amendment 21. Both amendments touch on the important issue of transparency, which has already been raised.

According to subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 2, the powers to be taken by the Secretary of State to implement replacement UK trade agreements for existing ones covered by our EU membership may last for up to six years after exit day. At present, as we have heard, the Government are not obliged to provide any indication of progress on the implementation of trade agreements covered by Clause 2. Businesses great and small have rightly complained that they have been given insufficient information about which agreements will be in place on exit day and beyond. The Minister has told me that there has been consultation between the Department for International Trade, trade organisations and businesses, but I am not sure that it has been on a sufficient scale to allay businesses’ concerns.

I acknowledge that the Department for International Trade has been working hard to ensure that no agreements are lost on Brexit day, whether we leave with a deal or not. But the fact remains, as we have already heard at great length, that there has been a failure to provide this House and the other place with information on the progress of the rollover of trade agreements. Surely we should not have had to learn from the Financial Times that there is a possibility that many, if not most, existing trade agreements will not be carried over after 29 March in a no-deal scenario. The previous amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggested the establishment of a one-off register of trade agreements to be covered by the Bill. Surely that would benefit us greatly in terms of both our scrutiny role and our ability to act on behalf of businesses seeking to know the state of play on trade negotiations.

However—again as we have heard—there can be no doubt that best practice requires the provision of regular progress reports. We heard on Monday, and have heard already this afternoon, about the information provided by the EU on its website, covering the progress of trade negotiations. For example, I have here a one-paragraph report on the 19th round of negotiations, held in October 2018, on an EU-China investment agreement, along with an expectation that the next round of talks will be held early in 2019. That is the sort of information being put out by the EU. I appreciate the issue of commercial confidentiality, but surely if the EU can provide such information on a regular basis, the United Kingdom should commit itself to doing the same, particularly given the concerns of businesses and the commercial sector, and the powers requested by the Department for International Trade in the Bill. That is the purpose of Amendment 21.

The second part of the amendment would ensure that the Government keep us up to date during each parliamentary Session by means of a fairly simple report. We are not talking about just this Session; this could go on for some years, so we are talking about every parliamentary Session. We should all be aware of plans and the likelihood of agreements being laid at particular times. We need early notice of issues that may prove controversial. I would have thought that any responsible Government would feel that this was a basic requirement for those who are tasked with scrutiny functions, such as this House, and for businesses wanting to know about progress.

The first part of the amendment is similarly based on the good practice we have seen in the European Commission. I am pleased that the Government propose to lay before us a report on the trade agreements they intend to implement, including the difference between existing and proposed agreements—but that does not go far enough in providing information to businesses and this House on the nature of the agreement. From what the Minister has told me I gather that, in the Department for International Trade, agreements will be scrutinised thoroughly by internal economic assessors. That is very good—but could the Government therefore be seen as marking their own homework? Might the Government not bring to our attention all matters of importance?

That brings me to Amendment 20. I would like to see the scrutiny also done externally. We should be provided with a full, independent report of the sort that would be typically be provided by, for example, the LSE or Sussex University, both of which have well-established trade policy expertise. That would detail the precise differences between existing and new treaties, if any, and—importantly—the expected economic impact of any changes. Without this information, it will be very difficult to judge whether an agreement is worth pursuing.

The Minister keeps saying that the treaties will be rolled over and will all be very similar, with no variation. I will give an example to illustrate my point. Let us say that a country covered by one of these agreements is prepared to sign a rollover only on the condition of a change in a regulation to allow a certain type of food to enter this country with reduced checks. This could have an impact on health, on United Kingdom domestic providers and, potentially, on other countries’ exports, including those of developing countries. In this situation, surely Parliament deserves to know the impact of the change and should be able to scrutinise its effects. The best way to do that, as far as I can see, is through the provision of an independent report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Henig]

My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said. I take the point about speed, but at the same time the department is seeking powers for up to six years. Therefore, on the one hand we are talking about speed and on the other the Government are saying that they might need these powers for some years. That is my concern. If we are talking about longer than a few months, we need a proper communication strategy and a proper strategy for scrutiny. In a sense, the department cannot have it both ways: if it is seeking powers over a period of years, then it is only reasonable for us then to be able to say, “Well, what are the arrangements for scrutiny?” If we are talking weeks, that is fine, but since the Bill is seeking these powers for this length of time, I do not think it is unreasonable for us then to say, “So what are going to be the arrangements for scrutiny and discussion?”

On the matter of scrutiny, it is quite obvious from everything that has been said by a whole number of people, on both this and previous amendments, that so far the scrutiny arrangements are by no means adequate. They really are not: we have to look at this and return to this. I hope that the department itself will come up with something on Report. Clearly, it is something that we will have to look at.

On communication, I take the point about the website, but the fact is that if you talk to businesses outside this House, if you talk to people who are trying to prepare for 29 March, they do not feel well informed and do not know what is going on. Businesses do not feel confident; the Minister might want them to, but they do not. This is a very serious matter because all of these businesses, great and small—it is a particular problem for smaller businesses, of course—do not feel at the moment that they understand what they should be preparing for. It is undermining their profitability and we are causing huge problems with this. Therefore, I am really not happy with where we are at the moment.

I am not going to labour the points this afternoon, as we have already heard about them at great length before. We will have to return to this whole area on Report, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Henig]

22: Clause 4, page 4, line 10, at end insert “and Ministers have previously informed Parliament of the proposed changes to the agreement”

[Baroness Henig]

My Lords, I will be extremely brief—I am sure that noble Lords will be happy about that—in moving Amendment 22 and speaking to Amendment 23. They are two very short probing amendments for the particular circumstances when Ministers do not feel the need to lay a report before the House. Once again, given the importance of trade agreements and the need for scrutiny, this is something that the Government need to consider carefully. Can it really be right for the Government to lay regulations before Parliament without informing us what they are and what impact they might have?

We can deal with the matter fairly straightforwardly. The Government will know in advance of the proposed changes to an agreement, not just at the point of laying it. There is therefore no reason whatever why we cannot be told what the change is at the time, as part of whatever reporting system there is. That is the purpose of Amendment 22.

In relation to Amendment 23, I say that the phrase “as soon as possible” is far too vague. I appreciate that the Government have many issues to consider and to juggle, but they should have the means to tell us what is being proposed. We need to know within a clear timeframe so that we can scrutinise the Government effectively. I have to hear a convincing reason from the Government as to why they need the wide-ranging powers under this clause. I therefore propose these amendments to seek further information from Ministers, and to signal the kind of openness and levels of scrutiny that I am sure Parliament will demand in terms of both these rollover agreements and the new trade agreements. I beg to move.

[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.

[Baroness Henig]

I thank the Minister for her response, and particularly for the additional information that she has just given us, which I am sure we welcome. As I said, they were probing amendments on my part and I was trying to get some more detailed information about the Government’s thinking, which I think we have had. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.

Trade Bill

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 9, 15, 25 and 26 which are in my name. I also want to support the many other excellent amendments which are contained in this group. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has already said, this seems to be an area that is causing widespread concern. I hope the Government can see sense and perhaps rewrite the Bill to accommodate our concerns. In fact, I have quite a lot of concerns about the way the Bill is written; I wonder whether it needs a fairly substantial rewrite in some places. We will come on to that later.

The starting point for me in approaching this Bill is to recognise that trade deals and free trade agreements are entirely different beasts from those of times gone by when it was simply a question of reducing tariff barriers between nations or ensuring physical access to each other’s ports.

Modern trade deals are deeply political, needing decisions and agreements about interacting with one another’s laws and even overriding national laws. Trade deals are of great concern to many environmental and social justice campaigners because they can be used as a bulldozer for corporate interests to override the rights and interests of communities. As we transition from our established position in the European Union to an uncertain and undecided future, those concerns are front of mind for many of us. I first tabled some of these amendments in October last year. When I did that, even though there were then six months to go to Brexit, it felt as if time was running out. Now, only two months away from Brexit, we are no closer to averting disaster than we were back then.

I was grateful for the meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and their officials. Although it was an interesting meeting, they were unable to resolve my fundamental concern about the Bill. The Minister told me that amendments such as mine are not necessary because the Bill is only about rolling over existing trade deals and it is not the Government’s intention to renegotiate any of them, and we have heard that again today. The Government’s intention is all well and good, but good intentions are quickly broken down by the harsh realities of international negotiations. It seems obvious, as we have already heard, that other countries will take this opportunity to renegotiate terms that are more favourable to their interests, perhaps slipping things in that the EU would not allow but that the UK might be more inclined to accept, particularly if we were feeling desperate.

I ask the Minister again now: can she guarantee that none of these trade deals will be renegotiated? It is possible that things were unclear during our meeting but we must know now. We are only weeks away from the Government needing to sign on the dotted line, so this should now be a much simpler question to answer. If it is guaranteed that none of our existing trade deals is being renegotiated, and all of them are simply being rolled over with the exact same terms, then most of my amendments become obsolete. That would be a great situation, and I would be perfectly happy. However, without a clear and unequivocal statement to this Committee that there will be no renegotiation and no change in terms, we must make clear and unequivocal amendments to the Bill.

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 13. The purpose of my amendment is extremely clear: to seek to maintain our present high standards of UK agricultural products. At the same time, however, I support other amendments in this group regarding animal health, hygiene and welfare standards and wider environmental concerns. I regard this issue as extremely important not just for the present round of trade treaty rollover negotiations, which of course it is, but as a signal for the future. I felt that the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, were very pertinent to this point. I want to make it very clear to both present and future trade negotiating partners that we in the UK intend to maintain our present high standards in a number of areas such as agricultural products and food standards.

I too am grateful to the Minister for meeting me last week. She made it clear that her priority was to get these current trade deals finalised with as much speed as possible—yes, the word “continuity” was mentioned—and said there was a necessity for flexibility in the negotiations. I understand all that. The problem, as we have heard today, is that not all the parties to these negotiations may just agree to roll these deals over; they may want to look at some things again. I want to signal to the Government as strongly as possible how important we feel our present high standards to be.

Ministers apparently agree with me, because on a number of occasions they have been asked about our present high food standards and they all say that they have no intention of departing from them and intend to stick to them. If that is the case, then surely we have no problem in writing that in the Bill. What is the problem? If we all agree that these high standards are essential, then I do not understand why they cannot be in the Bill. I understand that my inadequate attempts to formulate the appropriate proposal may be the problem. I would then say to the Government, “Fine. You can see what I and other people are after. Take that sentiment away and put it in whatever form meets your requirements”. I cannot understand how they can just ignore this important issue. If Ministers share my views on high standards, there must be a way of encapsulating this in the Bill in some form. I am very flexible; I do not mind how it appears in the Bill, but I really feel that it should be there.

Food standards and the negotiations about them are going to be a major issue not just for these rollover trade deals but for the future. We keep hearing talk about the possibility of us joining the Pacific trade group. I think there was a meeting with people from New Zealand or Australia only today and we hear again about this possibility. But that would inevitably mean moving away from EU standards and our current high standards for food and agricultural products. Therefore, every time we hear these sorts of discussions about joining this group, we are alarmed; we want to know, if that is the case, will we then lower our standards? We cannot have it all ways. We also know how American agribusinesses are hungrily eyeing British markets. We know perfectly well that they want to flood our country with cheap chlorinated chickens and other food that does not meet our present high standards. Therefore, I believe we have to make it clear from the outset that we will not agree to this.

The Government should be left in no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling across the country on this issue. I ask them to make it clear in negotiations taking place now and in the future that food standards will not be lowered in any way. I strongly believe that everybody in this country will want this to be acknowledged. That is why I have tabled this amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 14 and I join in supporting Amendment 13 and much of the sentiment behind Amendments 9, 25 and 26. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the meeting I had with her. I entirely support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, as to why it is important to have these points in the Bill. If you look at the gross value added of agriculture, it contributes over 10% to the economy of the Yorkshire and Humber region alone. Exports of food and drink from the UK are worth £16.4 billion per annum.

I would like to say a word about marketing. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, raised a very important point here, which I discussed in the private meeting I had with the Minister. Our exports to China, for example, have grown by over 60% because the agricultural attaché in Beijing is paid 90% by the industry levy and 10% by the Government. If we are doing so well there, surely we should heed the requests from the NFU, farm organisations and the food and drinks industry to have similar specialists in other key markets. The sooner we do that, the better. I am half-Danish and it is a source of some surprise to me that Denmark exports a higher share of its food to countries such as China than we do. It is a country of 6.5 million; we are a country of 60 million. We have a lot of catching up to do, but we are clearly on the right track with the agricultural attaché.

In supporting the theme of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I would like to put two questions to the Minister before we return to this on Report. First, if the Government are not prepared to put this in the Bill, what commitment can my noble friend the Minister give the Committee this evening that in any free trade agreement the Government conclude with overseas trading partners, all food imported to the UK will be produced to food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection standards which are at least the equivalent of those currently required by producers in the UK? Secondly, can my noble friend explain how the Government intend to set out, in clear and unambiguous terms, how they propose to ensure that food imports into the UK will adhere to our environmental and welfare standards, in the context of WTO obligations? I will not repeat the examples that have been given, but over 20 or 30 years and under different Governments—many noble Lords have served as Ministers for Agriculture—we have increased the cost of food produced in this country, at the consumer’s will, to have the highest environmental, welfare, food safety and hygiene standards. Those cannot now be swept aside in this bid to have cheap food. We have to pay the cost of producing that food.

Trade Bill

Baroness Henig Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I add my congratulations to our new colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, on her riveting maiden speech. I look forward to hearing her future contributions in this House.

I wish to speak to Part 1 of the Bill. We are repeatedly told by those keenest to pursue our departure from the EU that our ability to make our own future trade deals is one of the most significant opportunities that Brexit will bring us. Given the importance of the issue, it must therefore follow that they and the Government will welcome keen and effective scrutiny, and recognise that the collective experience of this House will be extremely useful in helping to illuminate and improve not just this Bill but, I hope, also our future trade policy. Unfortunately, I have to tell the House that in the two years since the formation of the Department for International Trade, we have heard virtually nothing about its priorities or policies. Recently, there has been a consultation on new bilateral trade negotiations with the United States, New Zealand and Australia, but we have not been told what the Government hope to achieve by prioritising these countries. We have seen Answers to Parliamentary Questions that provide little detail on either our proposed trade policy or on the progress of the talks that we are having to replicate the existing trade agreements covered by this Bill.

The avoidance of any real scrutiny of the UK’s trade negotiations reached new heights when Cabinet Minister Liam Fox appeared before the International Trade Select Committee in the other place on 11 July. In relation to ongoing UK negotiations at Geneva to re-establish independent WTO schedules, he told the committee that,

“negotiations are going quite well ... people do understand our position … Of course, the problem is not with the United Kingdom”,

by which he presumably meant to imply that the problem was with the EU. Two weeks later, when the UK’s schedules were formally submitted, correspondents in Geneva cited a number of countries which were in fact going to lodge objections to the existing treaties because, in the process of transfer, they wanted to change one or more provisions. That must surely have been known at the start of July but Parliament was not told. On this evidence, can we trust the Government to provide honest information to Parliament?

If we in Parliament cannot trust the Government, imagine what business and civil society will think. In the case of businesses, we are talking about changes to their access to other markets in potentially as little as six months’ time. All we have heard from Ministers is that discussions are progressing well and that no countries have raised objections. On the evidence of the information provided regarding WTO negotiations, there is no way that businesses can rely on such assurances. Surely we want our businesses to be as well briefed and prepared for the future as possible.

The Government should be equally concerned about the impact of secrecy on civil society. Four years ago I was a member of the EU sub-committee examining the EU-US trade agreement, TTIP. It caused considerable controversy, not least because people objected to its being negotiated in secret. In our final report we judged that,

“insofar as a public debate on the TTIP exists, EU member states are losing it”.

What lessons have the Government learned from that? Few in this House would wish to repeat the experience—say, for example, with a US-UK trade deal being negotiated behind closed doors, which potentially, through some of its food provisions or trade dispute resolution clauses, could render any other trade agreement toxic. This is indeed what nearly happened in the EU when TTIP nearly endangered the EU’s trade deal with Canada.

The Secretary of State has been making speeches about the need to support trade agreements, calling in aid on occasion the work of David Ricardo. With respect to Liam Fox, it has been aptly said that he should perhaps tell us more about how the UK will beat the challenges of the 21st century rather than those of the 19th. These 21st-century challenges are those of policy, trust and communication, and to date—and indeed in the Bill—I fear that the Government have comprehensively failed to meet them. On policy, we have yet to see the Government communicate in any way what objective they would like to achieve in future trade negotiations and agreements. This relates to the existing trade agreements as well as to those to be concluded in future.

We have heard many experts, and Members of the House today, say that UK manufactured goods may not be eligible for tariff preferences in these replicated trade deals because trading partners will not accept the continuation of existing rules of origin once the focus is the UK, not the whole EU. Can the Minister give us an update on the Government’s progress on this matter, given the importance of this issue to companies here and now? It is equally important to understand what the Government would like to protect. For example, we have a verbal promise that our food standards will not be changed, but as far as I can see there is nothing to stop the Trade Bill being used to make such changes. Would it not be reasonable for our farmers to have that commitment written in legislation?

That leads us on to the crucial question of trust. As I have already pointed out, the Government have not yet done enough to create a position where we can trust assurances that Ministers will lay meaningful reports before Parliament stating the difference between the trade agreement previously and the proposed new one. That is why I believe we will need to consider amendments in Committee to ensure effective scrutiny. For example, I suggest the Government might commit to the report being produced or audited independently, perhaps by a committee of this House or of the other place or by an arm’s-length body. This simply echoes the kind of best practice that exists at this moment across the EU, and I am sure we would not want to depart from such practice or to lower existing standards of scrutiny in relation to the negotiation of trade agreements. Good communication lies at the heart of trade policy. Ultimately, Parliament has to hold the Government to account on this. The Secretary of State’s commitment on 16 July to keep Parliament closely involved with regular ministerial Statements and updates is welcome but not in any way sufficient, either for us to provide scrutiny or to give reassurances to businesses and individuals who will seek details from us as to exactly how they are going to be affected.

It is crucial that the Government should commit to providing Parliament and indeed the devolved Administrations with an update of all the negotiations covered by the Bill on a regular basis, which is to say perhaps three times a year. I do not believe that that is too much to ask. It would ensure that we were able properly and effectively to provide scrutiny and add our expertise to the Government’s efforts. There are Members of this House who know very well that negotiations even to replicate agreements can be very difficult. There are Members who appreciate that agreements with the likes of Norway and Turkey, for example, will be difficult to replicate without the UK maintaining a close relationship with the EU. I would like the Government to acknowledge that. How will these agreements be dealt with, and how will the challenges they pose be overcome? I will not hold my breath while I wait for an answer, but this is precisely why we need to consider an amendment along these lines in Committee.

The Government are currently treating Parliament and, I fear, business and civil society as the enemy in trade policy, who should be given as little information as possible. This approach is dangerous and counterproductive. Businesses, federations, trade unions, pressure groups and individuals all need to know what is being negotiated on their behalf and they need to be able to contribute meaningfully to the process, as indeed the Minister said in her opening remarks. I absolutely agree with her that people need to be consulted and to know what is going on. I hope that in Committee we can look to facilitate that process. After all, taking back control has to apply to them and to Parliament, not just to the Government.

I believe we need to start to create some consensus around the sort of trade deals that we want to conclude in future. That is so important after everything that has been happening recently. If we fail to create consensus, we will surely face an uphill battle to create a country that is open to trade and exporting successfully.