Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady O’Grady on her maiden speech. She showed what a real champion for equality and fairness she is. I must admit that little did I know when I interviewed her for her first job in the trade union movement in the 1980s, working with my noble friend Lady Prosser, that she would go on to break the glass ceiling and become the first woman general secretary of the TUC. I am immensely proud of her. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bray of Coln, and certainly I found her speech inspiring. I like the idea that she values debate and respects all sides of that debate, and I look forward to her future contributions in the Chamber.

The theme of this debate is clearly about ensuring certainty that avoids chaos. I must admit that reading the Sunday Telegraph this week, we have all had recent experience of how uncertainty can create chaos, and that is something that we certainly want to avoid. Of course, EU law which applied to the UK was turned into domestic law to provide the maximum certainty after Brexit—as we have heard in this debate, laws related to farming, food standards, the environment, employment, financial services, privacy and much more. Reference has been made to CBI director-general Tony Danker, who said that this Bill is creating huge uncertainty for UK firms and risks throwing industry into some chaos. The Law Society said it could see a devastating impact on legal certainty in the UK and a negative impact on its status as an internationally competitive business environment.

Where did we start? Where was the policy? In the Explanatory Note to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as the DPRRC report reminds us, the Government’s policy on repealing and replacing retained EU law was that it would be for democratically elected representatives in the UK to decide on changes after full scrutiny and proper debate. No one disputes the need to consider the status of those laws whose placed on our statute book depended on our EU membership.

Noble Lords in this debate have made it very clear: this should not be an ideological debate. This is not about Brexiteers and remainers; it is about how we make our laws. That should be something that unites us all. This rushed and chaotic process, putting power over huge swathes of law in the hands of Ministers without parliamentary oversight, is simply not right.

As we have heard, this Bill seeks to: sunset most retained EU law by the end of 2023; change the way in which any retained EU law that Ministers decide to keep is interpreted; and provide Ministers with wide-ranging powers to restate, revoke or replace retained EU law. If Ministers want retained EU law to fall away—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made the point so effectively—all they need to do is nothing: take no action. The decision to take no action is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

The 28th report of the SLSC draws attention to the risk of “inadvertent omission” because departments have failed to identify key laws, and to the absence of parliamentary scrutiny of retained EU law that Ministers have decided should be sunsetted. Far from creating new, high standards of regulatory framework, the replacement legislation cannot increase standards; as we have heard in the debate, it can only keep them the same or make them lower. Reducing standards or allowing key pieces of legislation to simply lapse risks the UK’s trading relationship with the EU at a time when we can ill afford it.

As we have heard, the uncertainty is: what are we talking about? The Explanatory Notes first cited 3,200 bits of REUL legislation. The dashboard refers to 3,745 bits. It grows each week as we examine it. We do not know what we are leading ourselves towards.

The Minister constantly states that he is proud of the UK’s record on employment standards, which, he says, were never dependent on us mirroring the same rules as the EU. Well, what is at risk? Why do workers and their representatives remain concerned? The TUC lists examples of rights that could be lost, and we have heard noble Lords refer to them today: holiday pay; agency workers’ rights; data protection rights; protection of pregnant workers, and rights to maternity and parental leave; protection of part-time and fixed-term workers; rights relating to working time, including rights to daily and weekly rest; maximum weekly working time; paid annual leave and measures to protect night workers; protection of workers’ rights on the insolvency of their employer; rights to a written statement of terms and conditions; collective consultation with workers’ representatives when redundancies are proposed; and protections of terms and conditions for workers whose employment is transferred to another employer.

I remind noble Lords that, last week, my noble friend Lord Woodley raised this matter, and he raised it again today: the protection known as TUPE. He asked the Minister a straightforward question: will he guarantee that TUPE protections will not be scrapped? The response he got was what all government Ministers across Whitehall appear to be saying, which is, “We will look at that and see whether it is appropriate for the UK economy and, if necessary, we will modernise, update or replace it”.

That is why workers are concerned. Statements such as that raise uncertainty and concern. I hope the Minister will answer that direct question tonight: will he keep that protection for workers who are threatened because, through no fault of their own, somebody has bought their company or it has been transferred? We need to have those guarantees. On part-time workers, the prevention of less favourable treatment regulations was raised by noble friend Lord Prentis last week—and he got absolutely no response on that either.

Perversely, the Minister argues that the sunset date provides certainty—a target by which departments can look at their body of retained EU law and decide whether it needs replacing, retaining or updating. A sunset clause is arbitrary. It leads to all kinds of errors and mistakes. The Minister argues that Parliament is not being refused the opportunity to discuss these issues, and that regulations that are updated or changed will come back to Parliament for approval. He forgets to mention that retained EU laws will simply fall away by being sunsetted.

We have heard in this debate from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I echo the remarks that he made on 12 January in the debate on the Select Committee report Democracy Denied? By the way, those reports are excellent reading. I also recommend that people look at that debate on 12 January. The noble Lord said:

“Nobody … could reasonably argue that secondary legislation is as effectively scrutinised as primary. … Secondary legislation is unamendable: it can be passed or rejected but it cannot be amended.”


In that same debate, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, a former Government Whip and Minister, said that

“when laws are passed without proper parliamentary scrutiny, they cease to be just technical, as they threaten the rights and freedoms of the individual.”

He also reminded us that:

“The excuse that excessive delegated powers are needed because Parliament cannot move quickly enough has been proved false on many occasions, not least by Parliament’s reaction to Covid legislation.”—[Official Report, 12/12/23; cols. 1532-37.]


We have heard Covid mentioned a lot in today’s debate, but it was Parliament that made those decisions and reviewed those instruments. We should not forget that.

The DPRRC’s clause-by-clause examination of the Bill is devastating. I have never read a report like it. The committee recommends that, of the six most important delegated powers contained in the Bill, five should be removed from it altogether. It argues that the shortcomings of this hyper-skeletal Bill justify its approach. I am sure that in the coming weeks we will see noble Lords from across the House speaking up for democracy by seeking legal certainty regarding all the rights and protections that this legislation will impact, and for the restoration of direct parliamentary oversight and accountability.

The overwhelming view expressed in this debate is that a reasonable balance can be struck between an efficient process for managing the transposition of legislation and ensuring democratic accountability where changes to rights are intended. None of the changes argued for today would prevent the Government from reviewing, reconsidering and, where necessary, replacing retained law, but Members from across this House want to ensure that the process used to do so is transparent, accountable and, above all, driven by the will of Parliament. We are here not to frustrate this legislation but to fix it together so that we can take back control to our democratic institutions.

Employment Rights

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I have some sympathy with the points that my noble friend has made, but, if he will forgive me, I will leave this for the Chancellor to sort out.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let us stay on this point. The Minister talks about the record of this Government. Paul Scully, in the other place, said that we will see employment measures come forward in both this Session and before the end of the Parliament. Apart from the statutory code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement, do the Government have a timetable to legislate on the 51 recommendations they agreed to and accepted from the Taylor review? When will we see a timetable for implementation?

Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

At the end insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations have been introduced without required or sufficient consultation, are opposed by employer and employee organisations, will do little to address the trained workforce shortfalls, could put workers’ safety at risk, will harm industrial relations, and may breach international law; further regrets that the associated Liability of Trade Unions in Proceedings in Tort (Increase of Limits on Damages) Order 2022 is unnecessary, as there are few if any occasions on which damages have been claimed, and an increase on the cap by 400 per cent is a threat that may inhibit the legitimate exercise of the right to strike; and concludes that the two instruments are simply a political exercise to deflect from the failure of Her Majesty’s Government to engage meaningfully with the organisations affected to resolve the disputes”.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate, but what I heard was a lot of gesture politics and nothing about how we improve industrial relations in this country. In moving this amendment, I will focus on the failure to consult, the lack of an impact assessment when the statutory instrument was laid, and whether the instrument will meet the Government’s policy objectives.

The Employment Agencies Act 1973 requires consultation before changes are made. Rather than consult on the new regulations, the Government are relying on a consultation conducted in 2015, when Ministers previously considered similar changes. I do not see how it can be justified for a seven-year old consultation to apply to legislation being laid in 2022. Things have changed considerably in those seven years, both industrially and politically. Even the department itself acknowledged that

“circumstances have altered in some ways”.

However, it did not think that these were

“particularly relevant to the changes”

proposed. Tell that to the employees of P&O Ferries, where agency workers were used to undermine a collective agreement and replace unionised jobs. P&O’s actions were met with condemnation from all political parties—including the Minister’s—unions and employer organisations alike.

Turning to the 2015 consultation, let us not forget that 70% of the respondents were of the view that the changes would impact negatively on employees, yet the Government still believe that they have got the balance right between the interests of individuals—by protecting their right to engage in industrial action—and the interests of the general public.

Despite what the noble Lord says, I think it has the completely opposite effect. They are not defending individuals’ rights. Rather than focus on supporting negotiations to resolve disputes, we have a Government determined to undermine workers and damage good industrial relations. The use of agency workers during a strike would increase tensions between workers and their employers. This is bound to make disputes more difficult to resolve amicably.

Let us not forget: strikes are a last resort, as the noble Lord says, and most negotiations resolve in an agreement. Even where a strike takes place, the resolution requires agreement and this Government are doing nothing to support negotiations and reach settlements and agreements. It will make it far harder for working people to organise collectively to defend their jobs, their livelihoods and the quality of their working lives. This would be a shameful outcome for a Government which only a few years ago promised to protect and enhance workers’ rights.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the draft regulations stated:

“The Impact Assessment will be published in good time before any parliamentary debates”.


That did not happen. The explanation for the delay, given to the SLSC by the department, was that an impact assessment had been produced but needed “final quality assurance checks”. As the SLSC reminded us, every time an instrument is laid without the supporting impact assessment, it undermines the ability of Parliament to scrutinise legislation effectively.

Last week, the Government belatedly published an impact assessment. This featured, as the noble Lord said, vastly reduced costs and benefits from 2015, suggesting that any net benefit for businesses is expected to be below £5 million per year. The impact assessment published in 2015 was declared not fit for purpose by the Regulatory Policy Committee because it did not provide sufficient evidence of the likely impact of the proposals.

Of course, the SLSC rightly drew attention to the Secretary of State’s statement that it is not possible to robustly estimate the impact of the policy due to the lack of evidence. That is where we are: no evidence. This is purely a political gimmick without any consultation with those most affected, including employment agencies and workers. How can we believe the assumptions in this latest assessment?

The lack of robust evidence and the expected limited net benefit must raise questions as to the practical effectiveness and the benefit of the proposed repeal of Regulation 7. I repeat that this change is opposed by employment agency businesses, trade unions and employee organisations alike.

In his letter to noble Lords, the Minister stated that:

“We believe the changes we are making will help mitigate the impact of future strikes, such as those seen on our railways this week, by allowing—


—and these are his words—

“trained, temporary workers to carry out crucial roles to keep trains moving.”

What is clear is that there is not a large pool of sufficiently trained and qualified agency workers able to replace most roles on the railway and in most other sectors. They are simply not there, so what is the purpose of this change?

Neil Carberry, chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, says:

“The government’s proposal will not work. Agency staff have a choice of roles and are highly unlikely to choose to cross picket lines.”


In addition to the damage to constructive employment relations, agency workers could also face a terrible choice between crossing a picket line or turning down an assignment and risk not being offered future employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate—which, I have to say, was a bit shorter than I expected. I will start with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I thank him for raising his concerns.

I repeat the point I made at the outset. This is very much a question of getting the right balance between, on the one hand, the right of individuals to strike, and on the other hand the rights of individuals to go about their daily lives, whether it be children taking an exam, people going to their hospital appointments or other workers wishing to go to work to do their jobs. These reforms will ensure that our laws strike the correct balance. In doing so, we are protecting the public from unwarranted disruption while, as I said, maintaining workers’ ability to go on strike, which, I repeat, will remain unaffected by these changes.

The noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Woodley and Lord Paddick, all referred to the consultation not having been carried out on the agency regulations since 2015. In response to those concerns, I would say that the consultation that we carried out in 2015 was extremely thorough. Given that, I struggle to see what a further consultation will bring up. Are there any new issues or objections that we are not already aware of? I think the response to that is no. As we said in response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, some things have changed but the fundamental issues remain the same. I think that in their hearts, Opposition Peers know that that is the case. This is about finding that right balance between the rights of individuals to strike and the right of the public to go about their lawful daily business.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also referred to the impact assessment. As I said in my opening remarks, it has been published, as we committed to do in the Explanatory Memorandum. As the impact assessment makes clear, this is a permissive change: employers will hire agency workers only if it makes sense for them to do so. There is no compulsion on them; it is permissive and their choice. Our assessment also shows that this change needs to lead only to a small reduction in the number of working days lost for it to have a positive effect on the economy.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, went on to question why it was necessary to raise the damages cap for unlawful strike action when damages are so rarely claimed—in which case, Opposition Peers’ concerns are ill founded. We are simply restoring the deterrent effect that Parliament intended when the original amounts were set.

The noble Lord also suggested that the increase in the cap would inhibit the ability of unions to take legitimate strike action. He himself made the point that there have been no recent cases on this matter. I also respectfully disagree with the point he makes. As I said, this change applies only to action which a court determines to be unlawful. If, as he suggests, trade unions go to the maximum possible trouble to make sure that their action is lawful, they will have nothing to be concerned about. I am sure that no noble Lord would suggest that unlawful strike action is acceptable in this day and age.

Let me address some of the other points made in the debate. My noble friend Lord Balfe asked whether agency workers would be willing to cross picket lines given current labour shortages. Again, this is a permissive change; nobody is going to be forced to take an assignment that they do not want to take. The point is that the current regulatory framework actually prevents them having that choice, and that cannot be right. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, raised concerns about the damage that this will do to the reputation of the recruitment sector, and the concerns of the employment businesses and others that have registered about this change. Nobody is being forced; nobody is being compelled; no employment businesses will have to supply workers to businesses facing industrial action. Again, it will be their choice to take part or not, as the case may be; no one is going to force them. We just do not see the point in having the blanket ban that we currently have.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, drew some I think incorrect parallels with the P&O Ferries case earlier this year. This case is completely different. In the P&O Ferries case, the company has admitted deliberately choosing to ignore statutory consultation requirements when firing staff with no notice. All we are doing in the case of these changes is giving employers more flexibility to help them minimise the disruption that industrial action causes. Where proper procedures are followed, staff on strike should not lose their jobs; they will continue to have exactly the same legal protections that they already have.

The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, questioned whether these changes comply with our international legal obligations, including our commitments under trade and co-operation agreement. We have carefully considered all of these issues and we are confident that the changes are compliant with all of our international obligations—as, indeed, I told the noble Lord, Lord Collins, during Question Time last week. The ability of businesses to use agency staff does not affect individuals’ right to strike, and the protections those striking workers have in law remain unaffected. The Government are adjusting the balance between the right of workers to strike, and the rights of the wider public to go about their lawful business, and this falls well within our margin of appreciation when implementing international conventions.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised concerns about health and safety. Again, these concerns are not well founded, simply because this change does not change the broader health and safety rules that businesses still have to comply with. Similarly, the obligation on employment businesses to supply suitably qualified workers also remains in place. The aim of our trade union laws is to support an effective and collaborative approach to resolving industrial disputes, one that balances the interests of trade unions and their members with the interests of employers and the wider public. The changes we are making will, in my view, support that balance, and I therefore commend these draft regulations to the House.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, simply asserting something does not make it true, and that is exactly what the Minister has done tonight. In fact, the reason why this debate was perhaps shorter than he expected is that not a single person supported his line of argument; that is the issue here. He talks about strikes as if there is somehow a desire on the part of workers to go on strike; there is no such desire. It is when they face intransigence; when they face Governments who are determined that negotiations cannot take place—that is what we have heard. I have not heard a single word tonight supporting the Minister’s assertion that this Government are in favour of a collaborative approach. When we were collaborative, as my noble friend said, during the pandemic, the TUC worked hand in hand with this Government to make sure that the economy did not suffer long-term distress—and what is the payback? As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, says, it is simply to have a pop, to have a go, but with no evidence provided that it will achieve anything that the Minister suggests. It will entrench opinions and it will delay settlements.

The employers, the temporary agency firms—and there are many of them—provide a very necessary service. They provide flexibility in very difficult, tight labour markets, as we have heard, and this action will undermine and discredit them and make it more difficult for them to do their job. It has been a very interesting debate. I hope we will be able to read in Hansard what this Government really are about, because they assert something and do something else. I beg leave to move the amendment and divide the House.

Strikes: Cover by Agency Workers

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am not sure of the point the noble Lord is making. We want to work with all the appropriate agencies to, as the noble Lord says, plug the hole in the workforce.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, what sort of importance do the Government place on international trading partners meeting their commitment to the ILO’s fundamental conventions? If the noble Lord thinks it is important, can he tell us what assessment the Government have made of the compatibility of these regulations with the Human Rights Act, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and the UK’s commitment to the ILO’s fundamental conventions, including article 3 of convention 87?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

We are confident that we are meeting all our international obligations. We are not interfering with the right to strike; workers still have the right to take strike action, provided they fulfil the legal tests required. We are confident in our legal advice on this.

Trade with the European Union

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Viscount includes a number of points in his question. As Minister for Investment, one of my top priorities is securing increased investment flows with Europe. On trade, I am pleased to say that he is right: over the past two years, there have been noticeable changes in UK trade. Of course, factors associated with the Covid pandemic, global recession and EU exit do not always make it easy to disentangle that, but I am confident that both trade and investment will increase in due course.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the EU committee found that the significant barriers that remain despite the trade and co-operation agreement will particularly affect smaller businesses, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that their trade priorities take these businesses into account?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, one of the reasons the Government have launched the export support service is to support UK businesses—it turns out that is primarily SMEs—with one-to-one advice on exporting to Europe. They can find all this information in one place. It is working well. There is a good volume of inquiries coming through, but I agree with the noble Lord that we have to do all we can to help SMEs in this important area.

Trade Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, was very generous to me in his opening remarks, and so was the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. It brought to mind EM Forster’s book, Two Cheers for Democracy, in which he says that the justification of our political system is the curmudgeonly, awkward, cantankerous and difficult Member of Parliament who sometimes gets some minor injustice put right. I suspect that rather than being a force of nature, that is more descriptive of the kind of role that all of us who have the privilege of serving in your Lordships’ House should take when it comes to causes such as this one.

As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has reminded us, what is happening in Xinjiang is certainly very close to a genocide. Terrible atrocities are occurring there and without a pathway to determine whether this is technically in breach of the 1948 genocide convention, nevertheless, many of us, without using rhetorical flourishes or hyperbole, are able to say: we believe that, accurately, this indeed is a genocide. I will come back to this.

This is not about individuals. This was not my amendment but the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, and it was supported right across this House. Its support was bipartisan and from the Front Benches of the opposition parties but also from distinguished Members on the Government Benches. That was true in both Houses. A former leader of the Conservative Party was the principal sponsor in another place and it was supported last night in the Division Lobby by the former Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. This is not about obscure people who are just trying to make life difficult for the Government; it is better than that. This is about a hugely important cause and it has been an honour for me to work with colleagues drawn from across the divide. In both Houses, there has been a coalition of significant players.

Ministers such as the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, will doubtless be relieved that they have arrived at the touchline and that the Bill will shortly become an Act of Parliament. However, I would caution them if they assume that they have heard the last of the all-party genocide amendment. Last night, 300 Members of the House of Commons brought the Government within a whisker of defeat. That, and repeated majorities of over 100 in your Lordships’ House, have demonstrated that as new genocides occur in places such as Xinjiang, this argument is far from over and is unlikely to go away.

By establishing a degree of parliamentary accountability in the way that the Minister outlined, the Government narrowly avoided defeat in the Commons. They have— and I welcome this—left a way open for Parliament to name atrocity crimes for what they are, enabling us to address our duties under the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, said it was up to Parliament to decide exactly how to go about doing that. One possibility is a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is not a bad precedent, were we to go down that route.

In line with what the House of Commons decided yesterday, our House could, if it wished, establish its own ad hoc committee comprising former judges who now sit in the Lords. To determine precisely what a genocide is will take time, expertise and great knowledge of the law—things that this House is uniquely equipped to contribute. Such a committee should urgently evaluate the evidence of the genocide and atrocity crimes being committed against the Uighurs in Xinjiang. This is undoubtedly urgent, and I will write to the Liaison Committee urging it to think about the various options open to it.

Yesterday also saw three welcome harbingers of a change in mood music. First, some Ministers accepted the principle that they should not strike trade deals with genocidal states, allowing parliamentary oversight of trade deals with nations accused of genocide. I would like to hear a simple statement from the Minister that he too would oppose trade deals with any state credibly accused of genocide.

Secondly, we have also been told that changes strengthening supply chains will be made to the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That was repeated earlier during exchanges on the Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. It would be very helpful for your Lordships’ House to know when that will happen.

Thirdly, ahead of the vote yesterday, the Government finally announced those Magnitsky sanctions. But they left out the organ grinders, such as Chen Quanguo, referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Blackstone, during earlier exchanges on the Statement. He was the architect of the Xinjiang atrocities and indeed, before that, those in Tibet as well.

Like the famous curate’s egg, the Government’s response to the genocide amendment is there in parts. What is missing is a failure to remedy the policy that only a court can fully determine whether a genocide is occurring and there is no provision of a pathway or mechanism to do so. Undoubtedly, the parliamentary debates on the Trade Bill have exposed this argument for the sham that it is. Since earlier stages of the Bill a bad situation in Xinjiang has only got worse, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly told us.

The outgoing and incoming Administrations in the United States have recognised this as a genocide. The Canadian House of Commons, the Dutch Parliament and others have declared it to be a genocide. A 25,000-page report by over 50 international lawyers says that it is a genocide, with every single one of the criteria in the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide having been breached.

Meanwhile, the BBC has been banned in China because it dared to broadcast the testimonies of courageous Uighur women who describe conditions in the concentration camps, including their “re-education”, their rape and public humiliation by camp guards. Those women have been threatened, bullied and defenestrated publicly by the Chinese Communist Party, with their characters besmirched.

Speaking only last month at the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Foreign Secretary rightly said that what is afoot in Xinjiang is on an “industrial scale” and “beyond the pale”. Earlier in the year he said

“frankly, we shouldn’t be engaged in free-trade negotiations with countries abusing human rights well below the level of genocide.”

In Committee, on Report and in various iterations during ping-pong, we have tried to address the discrepancy between the rhetoric and the United Kingdom’s inability to make a declaration of genocide and whether we should continue business as usual. The reality is that some in government want to keep things as they are.

Just a week ago, during two sessions of a Select Committee of this House, key witnesses—a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the former National Security Adviser and the former head of the Foreign Office on China—declined to say when asked whether trade should continue with a state accused of genocide. One said there was not enough evidence, another said the question was too political. One rejected suggestions that Britain should distance itself from China owing to its human rights record, saying:

“I see no British prosperity without a trading relationship with China.”


Another said:

“There are many countries in the world with appalling human rights records with which we have had an economic relationship over many decades. That has been a traditional position of the UK”.


But should it be?

Two hundred years ago, the foremost champion of free trade Richard Cobden, that great northern radical, said that free trade was not more important than our duty to oppose both the trade in human beings and the trade in opium. Today, the red line should be states involved in the crime of genocide. Genocide is not one of those “on the one hand this, and on the other hand that” questions; no balance needs to be struck.

In 1948, Raphael Lemkin, who studied mass atrocities throughout the 1930s, was drafting the genocide convention. Nearly two years ago, I visited a site in northern Iraq at Simele, where Assyrians were murdered in a massacre that became a genocide. Raphael Lemkin described that, and he went on to experience the slaughter of all his extended family in the Holocaust: over 40 of his relatives were murdered. He coined the word genocide from “genos” and “cide”—“genos” being the family and “cide” being the destruction, the cutting of the family or any group that is part of it. The genocide convention came out of that. It was his way, and the way of nations, to ensure that the world would not witness atrocities like those committed by the Nazis again. But acts of genocide and atrocity crimes have continued to occur.

Since 1948, we have witnessed genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, northern Iraq and now in China, Burma, Nigeria and Tigray. That is not an exhaustive list. The response to these atrocities has always been inadequate. Whenever a genocide has taken place, there is a collective wringing of hands. But the promise to break the relentless and devastating cycles of genocide has never materialised.

In forcing Parliament to address these questions, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have helped to open the debate. I thank Members of both Houses and people outside of Parliament who have given so generously of their time in promoting and supporting this amendment. I must make special mention of the Coalition for Genocide Response, of which I am a patron, and the role of Luke de Pulford, who organised a campaign in the House of Commons. I also thank the clerks in the Public Bill office for their patience and help throughout.

The debate on the genocide amendment may now be drawing to a conclusion, but the debate it has raised in the country has begun and it will not end here.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, throughout the debate on this Bill, we have had a focus on ministerial accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. I would like to acknowledge that there has been movement by the Government and that has certainly been prompted by the Minister, who has been listening to us.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been absolutely determined to ensure that these issues are brought to the forefront of our attention. What we have sought to do from these Benches is to complement the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I also thank him for supporting my amendment to the Trade Bill on this issue. We wanted to ensure that there was a broad debate about human rights in relation to trade and for the United Kingdom’s commitments to match its actions, including on human rights and international obligations.

My noble friend Lord Adonis is absolutely right: we want a proper joined-up government approach to end the position of one department condemning the actions of a country committing outrageous crimes against humanity while another department signs preferential—and I mean preferential—trade agreements. We cannot allow that to continue.

Economic Partnership Agreement: Kenya

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, let me start by echoing the remarks of other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord McDonald. He showed remarkable ability in being able to say so much in such a short period of time. I hope he will continue with that record.

I also echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, which complemented those of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, on support for the Government’s commitment to ODA. I saw first hand last year the in-country programmes in Kenya, in particular on nutrition and agriculture, which is what this agreement could particularly impact, and the diversity of agriculture which is necessary to ensure proper nutrition. One of the problems with the focus on trade is that often those agricultural products that we import are not delivering for the people of Kenya in the way that they should in terms of nutrition. I hope that we will return to that subject later on.

This continuity agreement is one of 10 that came into effect on 1 January, and it is the only one that has been subject to any form of debate in either House. This illustrates how the CRaG process is totally inadequate in guaranteeing proper parliamentary scrutiny of new trade deals before they come into effect. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the changes that were made in the Trade Bill; I understand that they will now be called the “Grimstone protocols”, which is great news, as I can keep repeating that name.

The Minister may well say that this is just a rollover agreement but, as we have heard in this debate and as the analysis by the International Agreements Committee shows, this is not the case. There should have been a proper discussion before this deal came into effect, given its implications for the rest of the East African Community. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, highlighted, I hope the Minister will respond in full to the committee’s request to explain what other options were considered for ensuring continuity of trading arrangements with Kenya, and why they were not pursued. In particular, what representations were made by the other EAC members and stakeholders, and how have the Government sought to evaluate those and address their concerns?

As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, noted, we know that Kenya’s Parliament failed in December to ratify the trade agreement with the UK, calling for a supplementary report on the economic partnership agreement. Last week, the Kenya Small Scale Farmers Forum sued the Kenyan Government, arguing that the process of the deal’s ratification was extremely flawed as no public participation was conducted by the Kenyan Government before the document was proposed in the Kenyan Parliament. In a statement, the farmers said that

“an open market with heavily subsidized tariffs for the UK farm products like chicken, pigs and maize”

would have

“the dangerous potential to destroy local production of the very same products”.

We had a debate on the EU EPA in this House, in November 2016, when all these issues were raised in relation to the development project and, in particular, the question of how we would deliver on the 2030 agenda to build sustainable development.

One other issue I want to raise, in addition to those identified by the committee, and which I focused on during debate on the Trade Bill, is human rights provisions in the Kenya deal. We have all heard the mantra of Ministers that these agreements simply maintain the status quo from the EU agreements that came before them. In some cases that is certainly true; for example, the agreement with the Ivory Coast signed by the Government in November 2020 and published in sufficient time for it to receive the full 21 sitting days of parliamentary scrutiny before taking effect on 1 January. Annexe 3 to that agreement replicates the effect and language of the EU’s Cotonou Agreement with the African, Caribbean and Pacific states, committing both parties to uphold human rights and the rule of law as an essential element of the agreement, spelling out the process and consequences that would follow any violation of that commitment. The Kenya agreement contains the same Annexe 3 as that of the Ivory Coast but removes the entire section dealing with the consequences of any violations of the human rights commitments. There is no explanation as to why; I hope the Minister will be able to explain that tonight.

I have argued in this House that we should use continuity agreements to strengthen the provisions in trade agreements relating to human rights—but here, in the Kenya agreement, there is a clear example of where the Government have actually done the opposite. One reason that this matters is that, as other noble Lords have pointed out, other East African Community countries will be able to join the EPA—countries that, according to Amnesty International, have a clear poor human rights record. We should focus on the implications of that.

Regional press reports this week say that Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda have demanded the extension of the negotiation period by one year so that they can sign the agreement as a bloc. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what the implications of that are.

Finally, as the Minister doubtless knows, Africa is home to 30 of the world’s 40 most climate-vulnerable countries, and Kenya ranks 152 out of 181, with an increasing prevalence of droughts and floods. Where once the rains marked the predictable changing of the seasons and could be relied on by smallholder farmers for their livelihoods, climate change and plagues of locusts are wreaking deadly havoc.

However, in the hustle and bustle of Nairobi, Kenya has hope for a bright and green future, planning a new sovereign green bond. The UK’s development budget has been very actively involved in encouraging Kenya’s green transition—so what assurance can the Minister give that the UK’s support for Kenya’s climate ambitions will be protected from the spending cuts that the Chancellor has imposed on this vital work?

Trade Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

We are still to see these. Until we do and the Government can be clear what consequences there are in our preferential trading agreements for countries such as China, the Minister can be assured that this House and the parties and Members in it will pursue these issues relentlessly.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, one thing that is clear in this debate is that this House is united in its absolute opposition and horror to the crime of genocide. There is no difference between us. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his work on human rights.

Throughout the scrutiny of this Bill, the debate has been about ministerial accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. These Benches originally sought to complement the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton; we wanted to provide a safety net in case the courts decide there is insufficient evidence to permit a ruling of genocide. We also know that the horrific crime of genocide is above all those other despicable crimes against humanity, crimes which we often hear reports of but which would not pass the test of genocide. That is what we were trying to do. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that in scrutinising this Trade Bill today we are trying to ensure that we match the UK’s commitments with its actions, including on human rights and international obligations, when it comes to preferential trade, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, just indicated.

I have said before—and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned this in his introduction—that we want proper joined-up government, to end the position of one government department condemning the actions of a country that commits outrageous crimes against humanity while another department signs preferential trade agreements. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is absolutely right to remind us of the Prime Minister’s words on 12 February at a Downing Street round table with Chinese businesspeople; Boris Johnson stated that he was “fervently Sinophile” and determined to improve ties

“whatever the occasional political difficulties”.

Genocide is not a political difficulty. We should be absolutely clear where this country stands.

Just a few days after the Prime Minister made that statement, last Thursday, the US House of Representatives reintroduced a bipartisan Bill that would ban imports from China’s Xinjiang region unless it is certified they are not produced with forced labour, and allow further sanctions against Chinese officials responsible for abuses against Muslims. Those are the actions of a state that is concerned about these horrendous crimes against humanity.

We are in a different climate, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said. The decisions this Government make on trade outside the European Union, and the way those decisions are taken, are opening up an entirely new frontier in Britain’s responsibility for what happens to human rights overseas. The question is whether we embrace that responsibility or ignore it. That is what this debate has really been about. This House has started a debate down the other end and, actually, we have made progress. I have heard speeches from Ministers and MPs that I am incredibly proud of. They have stated their commitment to human rights; they have stated that they will take them into account. We have made progress and we should not forget that.

However, when it comes to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we have a responsibility to ensure, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, that the Government do not get away with silencing the elected House. It is our opportunity to give the elected House a voice on this subject, because it has obviously indicated its desire to consider this issue. It is really important that we wholeheartedly back the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, this afternoon. In doing so, we should not forget the words of the Minister about how human rights will play an important part in consideration of trade matters. He has made that commitment and it will be our job in the future, as a House that scrutinises, to hold such Ministers properly to account. I hope that we will increase the majority in this House in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, this afternoon.

Trade Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—

2B: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Free trade agreements: determination on state actions
(1) Before a trade agreement can be laid before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Ministers of the Crown must determine whether another signatory to the relevant agreement has committed crimes against humanity, or if the agreement is compliant with the United Kingdom’s human rights and international obligations. Such a determination must be published and made available to the relevant Committees in both Houses of Parliament at the same time as they are requested to consider a signed trade agreement.
(2) The Government must present an annual report to the relevant Committees in both Houses of Parliament which examines any crimes against humanity committed or alleged to have been committed by another signatory to the relevant agreement since it was signed. If such crimes have taken place, Ministers of the Crown must make a determination on the continuation of a trade agreement.””

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I welcome and support all the amendments in this group. There is no difference between us on the issue of human rights and, in particular, on ensuring that those people who commit genocide are held to account. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his work on human rights. We have a long record of working together on this, and I am sure we will continue that co-operative approach this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con) [V]]

My Lords, this has, quite rightly, come to be the most passionately debated issue. We have heard a number of remarkable interventions from across the House. Anybody listening to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, could not have failed to be moved by what he said, and I pay particular tribute to him, as I have done on previous occasions.

The Government have listened carefully before today, and we will listen very carefully to the points that have been put forward in this debate. First, I make it crystal clear to noble Lords that the UK does not have a free trade agreement with China and is not currently negotiating one. If it were to do so, any concluded agreement would be laid before Parliament, as is usual under the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, which empowers Parliament to undertake treaty scrutiny prior to ratification. This mechanism is available to Parliament now, as it has been since 2010, and it rightly does not turn on determinations being made in the courts.

I say without any minimisation that it is always open to parliamentarians to raise the issues of the day with the Government and to spotlight developments of serious concern, both domestically and internationally, on human rights, trade and myriad other issues. Parliamentary committees have existing powers to hold inquiries and publish reports and the Government welcome and encourage the searching and serious efforts of parliamentary colleagues from both Houses in this regard. However, there are critical, practical concerns with this amendment which I outlined earlier. I shall not repeat the arguments I gave in my opening, but they are real and serious. I must ask noble Lords to put aside the quite understandable emotional reaction that they have to this issue and to consider these arguments and the points that my noble friend Lord Wolfson and I put in our letter today. Of course, I apologise to noble Lords that the letter was not issued earlier.

There are serious wider issues affecting the issues in this amendment, as has been recognised by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and others. This Government are committed to working with Parliament on this most heinous crime of genocide and to explore, and to continue to explore, options with Parliament in this regard as it relates to trade, but we must proceed without amending the delicate balance in the constitution or the role of the courts, no matter how terrible these issues are, or we will run the risk of undermining the very aims of those seeking justice.

However, yet again, I want to make it completely clear that the Government understand the strength of feeling on this matter. It is completely common ground between the Government and the noble Lords who have spoken that there must be enhanced scrutiny for Parliament on both the issue of genocide and the Government’s response to this most serious of crimes. I accept that point completely on behalf of the Government.

Accordingly, the Government are looking at how we can ensure that the relevant debate and scrutiny can take place in Parliament in response to credible concerns about genocide in defined circumstances. We want to work with Parliament to find a parliamentary solution and ensure that the Government’s approach to credible claims of genocide is both robust and properly accountable to Parliament. This is not a subject that can be swept under the carpet. It must be dealt with transparently and openly.

The Government’s proposal is that if a Select Committee takes such evidence it considers appropriate, publishes a report stating that there exist credible reports of genocide and subsequently seeks a debate on the report or is dissatisfied with the Government’s response, HMG will of course facilitate a debate on the report in Parliament. Such a debate would bring extreme focus to the issue in question. It would greatly increase political pressure on the situation in question and provide further scrutiny of government policy. I am convinced that that is the best way forward.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an amazing debate. We have heard some powerful speeches; I will remember many of them for a very long time.

I was struck by the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I tried to participate in Holocaust Memorial Day through listening to lots of online events. I was struck by someone who, like the noble Baroness, lost her family and parents. She talked about how she speaks to schoolchildren about these horrible events; obviously, children are too young to be really hit with that horror. She said that we understand where genocide ends but do not understand where it begins. That is what this debate is about: human rights and respect. She said that she was teaching children about how failure to respect is a slippery slope. I know that myself from being a gay man in the 1980s; I would recommend watching “It’s A Sin” because you can see what happens when people lose respect.

We are in a new era where we have a responsibility to start negotiating trade agreements outside the EU. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is absolutely right: we must ensure that, with that responsibility, we take cognisance of all our human rights responsibilities.

I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. He and I have disagreed about policy on many occasions but we agree on so many matters of principle, and on principles relating to human rights and genocide there is not a single difference between us—we are both committed. I reassure him that the purpose of my amendment is to complement and underpin the very important amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He should have no fear in voting for my amendment, because the Minister has just told us that what the Government are doing is work in progress. Great—I want to make that work progress even more, but the only way we can do that is by ensuring that the elected House has the opportunity to consider both these amendments. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Trade Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 18th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

1: Clause 8, page 8, line 23, leave out “in advance of such agreements being” and insert “are”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is to clarify the drafting of this provision.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, who has unfortunately been delayed on his way to the House, I beg to move Amendment 1. This is a technical amendment to correct an error that was made in the original drafting, and I understand that the Minister and the Government will not be opposing it.

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say just a few words about this amendment. Although it is technical, the intention is to provide clarity to that part of Clause 8 which sets out the procedure whereby the Government propose to implement an international trade agreement which has an impact on standards in domestic legislation relating to, for example, social, environmental or animal welfare standards. I completely understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in tabling this amendment is to make it clear that the legislation relating to standards should complete its parliamentary processes, as the clause says, prior to the trade agreement being laid.

I am not really speaking about that aspect of it. Indeed, I draw attention to the fact that, notwithstanding Clause 8, Clause 7 has what I would regard—not least because I moved the relevant amendment at Report—as a better formulation, which requires the subordinate legislation, secondary instruments, to have been laid before the ratification of the trade agreement and for the primary legislation required for its implementation to have been passed before ratification. However, Clause 8, as clarified by this amendment, has the effect of meaning that the parliamentary procedure in relation to domestic legislation has to be completed before those texts are laid before Parliament. I think that is unnecessary and rather burdensome, and it would be better to rest on the text in Clause 7, which requires the legislation to have been passed prior to ratification.

The point I want to make is actually about impact assessments. If, in response to this short debate, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—who I see is, happily, now in his place—can explain why impact assessments should not be laid before Parliament prior to the completion of parliamentary processes relating to the implementation of domestic legislation, I would welcome that. That seems unnecessary—indeed, undesirable. It would be better were impact assessments formulated and laid before Parliament relating to domestic legislation which implements any change in standards in this country consequent to an agreement in an international trade context. For them not to be required by legislation to be laid before Parliament until the text of the trade agreement itself is laid seems unnecessary and undesirable.

I do not oppose the amendment, as it has the effect of making clear that subsection. However, what the subsection suggests, particularly for impact assessments, is undesirable. As it happens, as we dispatch the Bill to the other place, this clause rather duplicates what is set out in Clause 7. It would be better to retain Clause 7, rather than the formulation in this part of Clause 8.