Trade Bill

Lord Grimstone of Boscobel Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

That this House do not insist on its disagreement with Commons Amendments 3C and 3D, on which the Commons have insisted for their Reason 3F, and do not insist on its Amendment 3E in lieu, to which the Commons have disagreed for the same Reason.

3F: Because Amendments 3C and 3D make appropriate provision for taking reports of genocide into account during parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements, and because Amendment 3E would impose a charge on public funds; and the Commons do not offer any further Reason in respect of Amendment 3E, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, with this possibly—perhaps hopefully—being the final debate on the Bill, I will take the chance to say a few words before responding substantively to the amendments before us today. I hope that noble Lords agree that the overall tenor of the debates in this House and the other place has been positive. There will always be disagreements and different opinions on policy; that is the nature of politics. However, I believe that we have worked constructively and made this Bill into a commendable piece of legislation that reflects the will of Parliament.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He has been a force of nature over the past few months and shown us how determined advocacy can lead to real change. Again, while there are certainly disagreements about how best we should look to approach human rights around the world and in trade, he has brought to the fore an incredibly important issue, and we are all the better for that fact.

I turn now to Commons Amendments 3C and 3D. The Government have moved in response to noble Lords’ concerns and supported the process and approach set out in the amendment from the chair of the Commons Justice Select Committee, which passed in the other place again yesterday. The Government continue to support that amendment as a reasonable and meaningful compromise on this difficult issue; today, I ask noble Lords to do likewise. The Government agree whole- heartedly with the principle behind this amendment: that we must have robust and searching parliamentary scrutiny of proposed trade agreements, especially where there are credible reports of genocide in a prospective partner country. This amendment delivers on that principle by ensuring that the Government must put their position on record, in writing, in response to a Select Committee publication identifying such credible reports. The committee can then insist on a parliamentary debate if it is not satisfied with this response, and the Government will be obliged to make time for such a debate.

The amendment also gives to the responsible committee for the elected House the authority to draft the Motion for debate. This is a substantive concession. In light of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I can confirm that the Government expect that its production of a report and the scheduling of any subsequent debate would be undertaken swiftly and within agreed timetables. This approach allows us to ensure that Parliament is in the driving seat on this issue, and that it can hold the Government to account for their trade policy, debating the issues openly in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. It does this while respecting the Government’s long-standing policy that it is for competent courts to make determinations of genocide.

The other place yesterday debated the issue of legal expertise and how parliamentarians who have previously held high judicial office might be involved in deliberations over credible reports of genocide. While this proposal was disagreed to in the elected House for reasons of financial privilege, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the remarks made by the Minister of State for Trade Policy at the Dispatch Box. He made it clear that the Government are willing to work with Parliament to develop an approach that draws on judicial expertise, if that is indeed Parliament’s express wish. I repeat that undertaking in your Lordships’ House today. Implementing such an approach could be readily achieved through Standing Orders and we would support this.

Of course, it is ultimately up to Parliament how it wishes to organise its own affairs. It is possible, for instance, for the membership of a new Joint Committee to be made up of members of Select Committees from both this House and the other place. It would be possible for such a committee to be chaired by a former senior member of the judiciary drawn from the Cross Benches and, with the agreement of the usual channels, to appoint additional members with relevant expertise to this Joint Committee. The precise details remain to be worked out but the Government are supportive of working with Parliament on this issue within the bounds of the procedure agreed to—for the second time, I have to say—in the other place yesterday. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

I am at heart an optimist, so I take the view that the experience gained in the last three and a quarter years already spent on the Bill will be added to by the experience gained by the International Trade Committee in the other place and the International Agreements Committee of our own House. Perhaps these reports and debates will finally convince the Government that Parliament has a constructive role to play in this process—one which can and will aid the Executive as they set up the trade agreements and treaties which are so urgently needed in this brave new world.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, in my closing remarks there are just a few points I would like to focus on. First, I am sure we would all agree that the tone of debate in this House has been excellent throughout the passage of this legislation. It is a testament to this House that we have been able to have these debates, and noble Lords should be proud of the improvements they have made to the Bill. I would like very much to join with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in thanking all the noble Lords and officials who have helped us to reach the point that we have done today.

In some areas, the Bill is not recognisable from the one that we started with. In particular, I believe that we have demonstrated through our words and actions during the passage of the Bill that trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. Indeed, I think if one wanted a fitting short title for the Bill, given the point that we have reached, that would be a perfectly admirable one: “Trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights”. Speaking personally, I find it impossible to envisage the circumstances in which Parliament would agree to any trade deal to be done with a country that is found to have committed the evil of genocide.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the issue of the content of the FCDO’s Human Rights and Democracy report. Of course, the Foreign Office publishes that report annually, and it touches on many relevant issues, including matters concerning human rights in the context of business and the private sector. I understand completely why the noble Lord has raised these points, and I will look to see whether this can be enhanced in further reports.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about the timing juxtaposition of reports produced under the Agriculture Act and any reports produced under today’s amendment. I am afraid to say to the noble Baroness that, as no process has yet been put in place in relation to reports being produced under today’s amendment, her question is unanswerable.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I can confirm that the Office for Investment is not in the process of negotiating any investment agreements with China. Again, I can also confirm that we have no preferential trade agreements in place with China.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, himself stated in one of our earlier debates, with a memorable reference to Banquo’s ghost, that the reason he was tabling an amendment was so that the other place could take up the baton and adapt and improve his amendment. Similar statements were made by my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. This place has discharged its duties by asking those in the other place to reconsider; they have reconsidered and sent back an amendment.

I believe that the amendment passed for the second time by the other place is a reasonable and proportionate compromise that will ensure that the voice of Parliament is heard loudly and clearly on this vitally important issue going forward. The decisions to be made on future trade agreements are, of course, political decisions to be taken by the Government, but with appropriate oversight from Parliament. This is what the amendment before us now guarantees, and noble Lords can and should take pride in the knowledge that the Bill might very well not have contained such guarantees—indeed, I will go further and say that there are no circumstances in which the Bill would have contained those guarantees were it not for the sustained and passionate representations that Members on all sides of this Chamber have made over recent months. Again, I believe that the House can take pride in that, and I offer my sincere gratitude to all Members who have contributed to the debates we have had on this issue.

I hope that noble Lords can now come together to support the Government’s approach, pass this amendment and progress this Trade Bill on its way, at long last, to becoming a Trade Act, content in the knowledge that we have fulfilled our constitutional obligations and—if I may say—have done so in the most searching, diligent and passionate manner. I say to noble Lords that they have undoubtedly made this a better Bill.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

National Security and Investment Bill

Lord Grimstone of Boscobel Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, there is something going around my mind now about letting foxes out of their glass cubes—I am not sure how dangerous that is.

These amendments would allow for undertakings to be accepted instead of a final order—a case well made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. During Committee in the other place, Dr Lenihan from the LSE said:

“There are many cases in which a threat to national security can be mitigated by agreements and undertakings without needing to block a deal.”


Perhaps the Minister could inform the House what thought was given to that proposal.

As we have heard, Amendment 71 is in a way a probing amendment to learn more about the type of person the Secretary of State could appoint to supervise a final order. We will be particularly interested to hear the Minister’s reply on this. What sort of specialism would be involved? Would the person need to have any relevant training, background or experience? It would be interesting to know how they would be selected and whether the job description would be included in the report that would in any case be made, so that one could see the basis on which the selection happened.

Clause 26(4) states:

“Before making a final order the Secretary of State must consider any representations made”.


We are interested in what exactly is meant by the word “consider”. Would that be part of a dialogue, perhaps as part of the negotiations, or simply a requirement that representations are in the dossier submitted to the Secretary of State for ratification? Assuming that the representations had not been successful—if there were a final order, that would presumably be against the wishes of the parties—it would be interesting to know whether the reasoning for rejecting them would be noted and reported on elsewhere, possibly to the ISC. It would be important for someone to be able to reflect on the decision-making that had taken place.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by extending my thanks to my noble friend Lord Lansley for these amendments. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken; all I think welcome the broad thrust of the Bill even if they wish, quite rightly, to probe certain aspects of how it will work.

I begin by addressing Amendments 45, 68 and 69. Amendments 68 and 69 would allow the Secretary of State to accept “undertakings” from the acquirer

“as the Secretary of State deems appropriate to remedy, mitigate or prevent any risk to national security”,

rather than issuing a final order or a final notification. Amendment 45 would then, as I read it, make a consequential change to Clause 13 in respect of notifiable acquisitions so that those which are completed otherwise than in accordance with the final order or the agreed undertakings are void.

The Bill as drafted allows the Secretary of State two options once he has exercised his call-in power: first, to issue a “final order”, which contains remedies. I would add here that remedies are not necessarily just black and white—they could have a whole set of actions incorporated into them; some noble Lords may not fully have comprehended that. Secondly, the Secretary of State can issue a “final notification”, which states that no further action is to be taken under the Bill.

Undertakings proposed by my noble friend in these amendments would come into force when the undertakings were accepted. They could be varied or superseded through the Secretary of State accepting another undertaking, replaced by a final order made by the Secretary of State at any time, or the Secretary of State would be able to release the acquirer from their undertaking.

I am grateful that my noble friend is seeking to expand the options available to the Secretary of State but, as I hope to explain convincingly in just a moment, the Secretary of State does not need these additional options. Undertakings would not be appropriate because the Bill already provides the dual benefit of certainty for parties while giving the Secretary of State the “teeth” needed to enforce a regime built around our national security.

The Bill includes the ability for the Secretary of State to establish the terms of any remedy through the power to make final orders. I emphasise that point again. The terms of a remedy may require someone to dispose of part of something or to do something in relation to one bit of an undertaking but not another. It is a comprehensive term which allows all sorts of matters to be included within it. Indeed, the Bill states in Clause 26(5)(a) that a final order may require a person

“to do, or not to do, particular things”.

I am advised that that is a strong statutory footing which the Government consider is both required and sufficient for remedies under this regime.

My noble friend Lord Lansley was right on the button when he said that this gives the Secretary of State all that he requires. The Secretary of State does not need any additional powers because this power gives him all that he might conceivably want to do. Of course, before the Secretary of State determines his final order, he is likely to engage with parties to an acquisition—acquirers and others—to explore potential remedies.

However, it is right for the purposes of national security that these remedies—once they have been considered, and once they might have been discussed and looked at—should then be able to be imposed through a final order rather than assented to by the Secretary of State. We believe that this imposition is necessary because the matters that we are dealing with here are matters of national security. The Bill as drafted provides the Secretary of State with the power to impose remedies through a final order or to take no further action under the Bill, which is all that is required.

With Amendment 71, my noble friend addresses an important part of the Bill; namely, the carrying out of activities pursuant to final orders. The execution of final orders is of course vital to ensure that any remedies imposed by the Secretary of State have their desired effect. There would not be much point in just imposing orders if they were not carried through afterwards. This amendment seeks to make explicit a requirement that anyone who will conduct, or supervise the conduct of, activities mandated by final orders must be “suitably-qualified”. While I appreciate the good intention of my noble friend, I do not believe that this amendment would add anything substantial to the Bill.

First, the Secretary of State is unlikely to appoint someone who could not conduct or supervise the conduct of activities mandated under the final order. It would be daft of him to put someone in to do the job who was not qualified to do it. Why would he or she wish to do that? To do so may undermine the Secretary of State’s remedy; the remedy may not be carried out in full or in part if the person is not qualified, which would be against the decision that the Secretary of State has made. It is therefore very much in the Secretary of State’s own interests that the person appointed has to be “suitably-qualified,” even if the Bill does not say that specifically. I take it for granted that that is what the Secretary of State would want to do.

Secondly, the Secretary of State will be subject to public law duties when providing for a person to be appointed. Those public law duties will require him to act reasonably and take into account all relevant considerations. This would include whether the person is suitably qualified to undertake the task. He would be failing in his public law duties if he appointed someone who was not so qualified.

Thirdly, should it be helpful to noble Lords, I am happy to state categorically on the Floor of the Committee that the investment security unit will comprise eminently qualified people of the right skills and experience. For example, if a particular case requires someone qualified in chartered accountancy or in audit, the Secretary of State will appoint somebody who has those qualifications to carry out what is required.

For these reasons, I believe that although noble Lords are trying to be helpful in putting forward the amendments in this group, they are unnecessary. What they seek to do is already covered by the powers that exist in the Bill, and I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw Amendment 45.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. I want to follow up on his last point. There is a certain ambiguity in his answer around where this person would be drawn from. In one sentence the Minister referred to the ISU and in the next sentence he referred to drawing on a particular power. It is not clear: is this a standing group of people who will be set in or will people be seconded from other companies or pulled in from other departments? A little more sense of what the source of these people is would give us more security around this.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. It will be horses for courses. It will be either qualified people from inside or, if a person from inside does not have the qualifications, someone will be drawn in from outside and appointed to do it. The test will be to make sure that the person you ask to do the role has the capabilities and the qualifications to do it. I say yet again: why would the Secretary of State wish to do other than to appoint somebody who is qualified to do this task?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his responses to this short debate, and indeed to those who participated in it. It was helpful to elaborate some of the issues, although I am not sure that we solved many of the questions that were posed.

My noble friend correctly deduced that I did not see Amendment 71 as needed. It was designed to find out who these people are. Although my noble friend did not say so, the implication is that they are the staff of the department, working in the investment security unit. In a sense, that tells us already that, when we come on to think about some of the implementation of this and the annual reports and so on, we are dealing not only with a flow of cases through the investment security unit but with a continuing role for the unit in the scrutiny and the conduct of the activities that are the subject of final orders. I hope that we will be dealing with only some dozens of final orders a year, but it will build up over time since many of these final orders in relation to entities will have a continuing relationship.

I did not expect the “suitably-qualified” question to arrive at any other answer than that they are civil servants recruited into or drawn from the department, but if they were other than that, it would be very useful for us to be told. I am assuming that they are not.

On the question of undertakings, as I surmised at the outset, the Secretary of State has all the powers the Secretary of State requires. The point, however, is that when making final orders, it may be flexible from the Secretary of State’s point of view, since the Secretary of State can include anything the Secretary of State wishes to include in it. However, it is not necessarily flexible from the point of view of the people affected, since once the order is made, the flexibility has completely disappeared. What is flexible about undertakings is the ability of the acquirers to make commitments at the time they are contemplating an acquisition in order to bring those two things together to enable the acquisition to continue—the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made that point, perfectly reasonably. If we want to promote investment and to assist those who are acquiring entities and assets in the United Kingdom, other foreign direct investment jurisdictions such as the US allow for mitigation agreements. The American one does not impose orders, or rarely does so. There may still be merit in having the flexibility to enter into agreements with acquirers rather than imposing orders on them. I am surprised that the Government have simply dismissed that possibility. Having it on the statute book does not mean that Ministers have to use it, but if it is not on the statute book, they cannot do it. That is why we are thinking about it at this stage.

However, in the light of what my noble friend says by way of the powers in the Bill, I suppose that at this stage it is probably best to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

The lead amendment, Amendment 48A, would introduce a streamlined form for mandatory notification, and Amendment 67B would make any time limit for an information notice not less than three working days. That seemed a sensible—I think the word used was “pragmatic”—proposal.

Turning to the interesting Clause 30, the Minister in the other place said,

“final orders, in exceptional cases … when we are administering taxpayers’ money—may bring about financial difficulty for the affected parties”,—[Official Report, Commons, National Security and Investment Bill, 8/2/20; col. 288.]

which is why Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to give financial assistance to an entity through a loan guarantee or indemnity as a consequence of making a final order.

It would be interesting to know a little more about the whole of this, as we have heard, and when a potential recipient might know that they were even in line for such help. How early in the process would it be indicated—not the actual decision but that that was a possibility? Or is it like Father Christmas appearing at the end?

As we have heard, the figure of £100 million is interesting, and it is interesting that there is no regulation-making or guidance-providing requirement such that guidance on the use of the power might have to be, if not agreed by Parliament, at least provided and open for debate and scrutiny. Will such guidance exist and how many cases a year are envisaged involving £100 million? Who would make the decision and how, as has been asked, and will it be reported in a timely manner—or, indeed, at all?

If this is the Government’s desired outcome, it seems that Clause 30 does not provide for any financial assistance in the case of an interim order. Perhaps the Minister could outline the thinking behind that, given that an interim order could also impose major costs on a British start-up or prevent an acquirer investing in one if it was thought that that investment might increase the acquirer’s level of influence unduly and trigger the next stage. There could also be the loss of a business-critical investment. It would be useful to know the thinking behind making money available to cover one sort of loss but not another. I look forward to hearing more of the thinking behind how this would work in the Minister’s response.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for tabling Amendments 48A, 67B and 67C. I hope that the transaction he referred to had a happy ending.

Amendment 48A seeks to make it explicit that a streamlined mandatory notification form may be provided for in regulations if a person has previously submitted a mandatory or voluntary notification to the Secretary of State. The Bill requires a mandatory notice to be submitted to, and receive clearance from, the Secretary of State prior to the completion of a notifiable acquisition. Clause 14(4) provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe the form and content of a mandatory notice in regulations.

The amendment would amend the regulation-making power to make it explicit that such regulations could provide for those who have previously submitted either a voluntary or a mandatory notification form to submit a streamlined form. I am pleased to say that we are completely aligned with noble Lords who want the process under the Bill to be as streamlined as possible. As the Minister for Investment, looking to the interests of investors, I completely endorse that. I reassure noble Lords that the regulation power as drafted already provides for that.

In addition, the Government are designing both the voluntary and mandatory notification forms with business in mind, while ensuring that the Secretary of State receives the information that he needs to decide whether to issue a call-in notice in relation to a proposed notifiable acquisition.

I stress that the Government are keen to ensure that all the forms are clear and simple to complete. A draft notification form was published for comment during the Commons passage of the Bill, and the Government continue to engage interested parties to test the ease of completing the forms and the clarity and relevance of the questions.

Amendment 67B seeks to create a floor for the minimum time which the Secretary of State must provide to a party for responding to an information note. The minimum floor proposed is three working days. As noble Lords will be aware, Clause 19 provides for an information note which the Secretary of State may issue to require any person to provide information which is proportionate in assisting the Secretary of State in carrying out his functions.

An information notice may include a time limit for providing the information and the manner in which the information must be provided. An information notice must specify the information sought and the purpose for which it is sought, as well as the possible consequences of not complying with the notice.

It will be in the Secretary of State’s interest that any party from whom information is required is provided appropriate time for collecting and providing such information, or else confirming that they do not possess it. Providing insufficient time for doing this will only lead either to incomplete information being provided or to information being provided in a form which is more difficult to analyse. It might also lead to unwelcome outcomes, such as a party undertaking due diligence as to whether they possess the relevant information, but there then being insufficient time for them to establish that with certainty.

It is with these issues in mind that I assume that my noble friend tabled his amendments. I reassure him that the Secretary of State will already have the appropriate incentives to allow appropriate time for a response, and that, more widely, public law duties will require him to take a reasonable approach in setting a time limit for responding to an information notice under the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thorough answers. In his answer on Clause 30, the Minister referred to “affected parties” and did not rule out the aggressor, as well as the target, from potential compensation—or mitigation, as I think the Minister described it. Am I right in assuming that the aggressor might also feel that they are eligible for mitigation?

Secondly, the nature of that mitigation seems to rule out the Government taking a share in a potential company, rather than simply bailing it out. Given that this Government have already spent $500 million taking a 20% share in OneWeb, which was not even strategic, why would they not leave themselves open to taking a share in a company so important that they felt they needed to prop it up?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I will give him an additional example of where this power or type of power might be used. As I stressed earlier, it is not a general compensation power and will only be used in instances where the public interest, particularly national security interests, require it. As I also said earlier, any financial assistance would be subject to Treasury consent and would have to be shown to provide value for money. For example, if the Government provided a loan, it would normally have to be at market rates. The clause does allow the Secretary of State to bail out any business, either directly or surreptitiously, through soft loans.

Equally, the aim is not for this Bill to cause businesses financial distress, nor do we anticipate it doing so. The Secretary of State—this is the key point—may make a final order only if he “reasonably considers” that it is “necessary and proportionate” to address an identified national security risk.

Let me give an example. A case might arise whereby an asset has to be secured to prevent the national security risk of someone else getting hold of it. The Secretary of State might have imposed a final order that blocked a trigger event of a UK company that was working on unique or world-leading technology. If the company could not immediately find an alternative buyer, and if the collapse of the company could itself pose a national security risk, the Secretary of State could consider using this power. In such a situation, the Secretary of State may decide that he or she wishes to provide financial assistance to ensure that the company could continue operating until an alternative acceptable buyer was found. As such, this power will be used only in very tightly drawn circumstances where doing so is clearly in the national interest.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I know that the Minister is trying to be as helpful as possible by tying down the way Clause 30 will work. However, “tightly drawn” is not how I would describe its wording, so I assume he is really saying that it is the risk of judicial review hanging over the Secretary of State that keeps him honest in the circumstances. That is not a very good place to be when you are dealing with a Bill of this kind.

The other aspect is transparency. The noble Lord did not really explain the reason for the threshold of £100 million. He said it was for transactions—or compensation, if you like—and financial assistance under £100 million in aggregate would have to be reported for the annual review. However, if it was £99 million, say, that would not apply and it would not be subject to a separate report; it would just be aggregated along with all the financial assistance given over the course of the year. Why?

These powers are very wide; we need to know how they are being used and what direction the financial assistance is going in. Therefore, simply drawing a line at £100 million does not seem to be very satisfactory in the circumstances.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his question, and I understand the concerns that he raised.

I will first deal with the £100 million figure. Of course, that is a lot of money for the Government to have to spend without having to report to Parliament. However, I assure noble Lords that, in order to offer this level of financial assistance, the situation would have to be truly extraordinary. The only circumstances I can envisage where the Secretary of State would need to use this power would be for some of the most significant nationally important firms. The significant nature of these firms means that they may be large, so the Government have put in this reasonable cap of £100 million. Personally, I would be very surprised if anything like that were spent. However, of course, any spending under this power will be subject to Treasury consent, as I have said—and the Treasury does not rush forward with money for departments in situations like this.

I have to say—and, in a sense, apologise—that the nature of national security makes it very hard to predict where some of these issues might arise. However, where they do and where national security is an issue, it is important that the power is there, provided that it is only ever used responsibly and respectively.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

As there are no further speakers, I call the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for tabling these two amendments. I would like to speak to Amendment 63, which gives me the opportunity to raise an issue raised with me, and I am sure with other noble Lords, by the Law Society of England. I put a direct question to the Minister in summing up this small group of amendments. Can he confirm that the Government have actually considered, and have regard to, the impact of the sheer large numbers of filings that they may receive on the new regime’s ability to dispense with these filings in a timely manner? My noble friend has done us a great service here by highlighting the level of information required in the first instance or that may be required at a later date.

The estimated volume of filings stated in the impact assessment, deemed to be between 1,000 and 1,830 transactions notified per year is, in the view of the Law Society, an underestimate. That is because, for reasons that my noble friend gave, there is likely to be a very large number of voluntary filings and requests for informal guidance, especially when the regime is new and businesses are accustoming themselves to its requirements. In my view, the Law Society has raised legitimate concerns, which are reflected in these two amendments. Can I have a reassurance that there will be sufficient resources to deal with the sheer number of requests that are expected to avoid delays and burdens for businesses, which could be avoided in this regard?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his Amendments 50 and 63. I shall deal first with a couple of points that have been made. If a voluntary notification is incomplete, it is not effective. That may mean that the Secretary of State may choose to exercise his call- in powers at some point in future in relation to that.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked whether we had underestimated the number of transactions that were likely to come before the unit. She referred to the work that the Law Society has done on that. All I can say is that we have thought about this carefully, and I am happy to repeat the assurance that we will make sure that the unit is fully resourced. If the number is greater than we anticipate, the resources of the unit will have to be expanded to cope with those greater numbers.

I extend my thanks again to my noble friend Lord Lansley for Amendments 50 and 63 which both relate to the information that must be provided as part of a notification. Clause 14 sets out the mandatory notification procedure and Clause 18 the voluntary notification procedure. Both clauses provide powers to the Secretary of State, by regulations, to prescribe the form and content of a mandatory notice and a voluntary notice respectively. Both clauses also provide that the Secretary of State may reject a notice where it does not meet the requirements of the clause, or the requirements prescribed by the regulations.

These amendments seek to make it clear that the Secretary of State can reject a mandatory or voluntary notice where information relating to either a notifiable acquisition or a trigger event has not been provided despite being specified as required in regulations. These amendments also seek, as a result, to ensure that any such regulations include a requirement to provide the information about the notifiable acquisition or trigger event needed to make a call-in decision.

I am happy that I can reassure my noble friend, I hope completely, that the Secretary of State absolutely intends to use the regulation-making powers under both these clauses to prescribe both the form and content of mandatory notices and voluntary notices. Indeed, our view is that the regime simply cannot work and will not work without such regulations being made. The primary entry mechanisms into the regime are based on notification, so it is vital that we are clear with businesses and investors about what information they must provide and in what format.

That is why, ahead of Committee in the other place, we published a draft of the information likely to be required as part of a mandatory notice or voluntary notice. I continue to welcome comments from noble Lords about that draft, but I think I can reassure my noble friend that information about notifiable acquisitions and trigger events will certainly form part of such requirements.

With that said, I fear that my noble friend’s amendments would therefore be duplicative in this instance. Clause 14(4) and Clause 18(4) allow the Secretary of State to make these regulations. Clause 14(6) and Clause 18(6) allow the Secretary of State to reject a notice where it does not meet the requirements specified in the regulations. The Government consider that this approach provides the powers that the Secretary of State needs to reject a notice where insufficient or the wrong information has been provided, whatever the final notification forms look like.

I hope my noble friend is reassured by my explanation of these clauses and the Government’s general approach on this matter, and I hope, therefore, that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I think he slightly confused two things together at the end, in talking about insufficient or wrong information. If there is wrong information, then clearly a notice can be rejected. The question about the sufficiency of information is the point I am coming back to. My noble friend was quite clear on—and I think it is very clearly set out—what it is the Government expect to be provided by way of information for these notices. The question is: why should they have a power to reject a notice on grounds that they require more information beyond what has been asked for in the material that has already been published? That is the power they are taking.

If the Government say—as my noble friend Lord Callanan said—one must set out who the chief executive is, and someone puts their given name but not their family name, they can reject it. The point is, however, that that was specified in the regulations. The question is: does it require his other information, and what is the other information? People might reasonably say, “You have rejected it because I did not provide the information that you required, but you didn’t tell me you required it.” That is my problem.

I will go away and think about this a bit more; maybe it is not important enough for us to persist with. For the moment at least, I will make my point and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 50.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, the noble Lords, Lord West of Spithead, Lord Rooker and Lord Butler of Brockwell, and my noble friend Lord Lansley for their amendments on the role of the ISC in relation to the national security and investment regime. I assure the noble Baroness that she will hear my own words rather than those of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan.

I start by saying that I have the deepest respect for the expertise and experience of the noble Lords who have spoken in the debate this evening. I have listened to what they have said carefully and with great attention. However, despite the eminence of those who have spoken, I fear that I may disappoint them in this speech.

I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to publishing information in relation to the regime that properly balances the desire for information with protecting national security. I shall come back later to the important point about parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. What I am saying also takes account of the existing position in relation to scrutiny of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, BEIS.

These amendments represent a number of approaches to requiring the Secretary of State to provide sensitive information to the ISC. Amendments 78 and 79 would in practice require him to create a confidential annexe to the annual report. Amendment 82 would require an additional, separate confidential report to be provided to the ISC. Amendment 70 would require him to share intelligence relevant to a final order with the ISC and not to make that order until the ISC has reported to Parliament on it.

Amendment 86 would extend the remit of the ISC through amending the Justice and Security Act 2013 to enable the committee to scrutinise the operation of the Investment Security Unit. As we heard, Amendment 90 seeks to relocate the Investment Security Unit, within six months of the Bill becoming law, from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to the Cabinet Office. It would also establish a wide-ranging advisory board to the Investment Security Unit, which should include, but not be limited to, representatives from relevant government departments, security and defence organisations, and business bodies.

I will address Amendments 78, 79 and 82 together. The reports proposed under these amendments would contain very similar information, including in relation to mandatory and voluntary notifications, trigger events that were called in and final orders made. In particular, they would require the Secretary of State to provide details of factors relevant to the assessments made by the regime. These include: the jurisdiction of the acquirer; the nature of national security risks posed in transactions when there were final orders; details of particular technological or sectoral expertise that was targeted; and other national security threats uncovered through reviews undertaken under this Bill. I note that similar proposals were put forward in the other place and it is perhaps not surprising that my views on this align closely with those expressed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Industry at the time.

I respectfully draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 61, which requires the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report and to lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament. This clause provides for appropriate scrutiny of the regime. We judge this to be appropriate, because that information does not give rise to national security issues when published at an aggregate level. It will also rightly give a sense of the areas of the economy where activity of the greatest national security concern is occurring.

Of course, it is right that there is also wider scrutiny of the work of BEIS and the work of the unit within BEIS. We therefore intend to follow the existing appropriate government procedures for reporting back to Parliament, including through responding to the BEIS Select Committee, which, I have to say, does an excellent job of scrutinising the work of the department. Indeed, I note that the BEIS Select Committee can and does handle sensitive material; for example, on our civil nuclear programme. The UK’s merger control regime under the Enterprise Act 2002 currently includes screening on national security grounds, and this function is overseen by the BEIS Select Committee.

In case there is any doubt of this—and coming back to the specific point that the noble Baroness made—there is no barrier to the BEIS Select Committee handling highly classified material, subject to agreement between the department and the chair of the committee on appropriate handling. The BEIS Select Committee will be able to see all the material that it needs in order to make its assessments within its role.

I argue that it is the right committee to oversee the work of the investment security unit within the broader remit of BEIS. We should not forget that the BEIS Select Committee is as much a part of our structure of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability as the ISC. With great respect, I would not want any of our comments to appear to be disparaging to the work of the BEIS Select Committee and the very valuable scrutiny work that it does.

I believe that the BEIS Select Committee is excellently placed to consider how effectively and efficiently the regime interacts with the business community and investors. It can also ensure that the NSI regime does not create disproportionate impacts on the economy, and, with its business expertise, it is able to scrutinise whether the regime is effective in scrutinising relevant acquisitions of control. I have to say, with deep respect, that I would therefore question some of the narrative I have heard that suggests that the BEIS Select Committee is not well placed to scrutinise the NSI regime.

I turn back to the ISC. There are, of course, no restrictions on the ISC requesting further information from the unit or from the Secretary of State for matters where it falls under the remit of that committee. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s remit, however, is clearly defined by the Justice and Security Act 2013, together with the statutory memorandum of understanding. I know that this irritates noble Lords, but that remit does not extend to the oversight of BEIS’ work. I therefore welcome and encourage the Intelligence and Security Committee’s considerable security-specific expertise and its review of the annual report when it is laid before Parliament.

Before turning to Amendment 86, I will first revisit precisely what the Justice and Security Act 2013 provides for. I remind noble Lords that this Act sets out the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee alongside a memorandum of understanding. The Act sets out that

“the ISC may examine or otherwise oversee the expenditure, administration, policy and operations of … the Security Service … the Secret Intelligence Service, and … the Government Communications Headquarters.”

The Act also provides that:

“The ISC may examine or otherwise oversee such other activities of Her Majesty's Government in relation to intelligence or security matters as are set out in a memorandum of understanding”


agreed between the Prime Minister and the committee.

The present memorandum of understanding states that the ISC is, in addition, responsible for overseeing the activities of parts of the Ministry of Defence, parts of the Cabinet Office—including the National Security Secretariat and the Joint Intelligence Organisation —and the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism. The ISC must report to Parliament annually on the discharge of its functions, and may make such other reports as it considers appropriate concerning any aspect of its functions. Redactions are agreed by the Prime Minister for any material that may prejudice the functions of the intelligence agencies or of other parts of the intelligence and security community.

Extending the remit of the ISC to oversight of the investment security unit would be a substantial amendment. In particular, the Justice and Security Act currently refers only to intelligence agencies, of which the investment security unit is not one. Noble Lords will have seen the strength of feeling in both this House and the other place concerning the role of the investment security unit in relation to the national security and investment regime—I am well aware of this. I understand that this proposed new clause is the result of careful consideration and an attempt to find a compromise, and for that I am grateful to my noble friend. However, for the same reasons that the Government have cautioned against other amendments that seek to provide for a more formal role for the ISC in relation to the NSI regime, I cannot accept it.

Amendment 70 seeks a similar privileged role for the ISC but in a way that, I have to say, would present additional problems. The Bill as currently drafted requires the Secretary of State, as the sole and quasi-judicial decision-maker, to follow clearly and tightly defined timescales and to handle sensitive information from a range of sources. Requiring the ISC to review every final order before it could be made would risk adding substantial delays into this process, harming both national security and business certainty.

The Government have faced amendments seeking for a national security assessment to be completed in one-third less time on large and complex acquisitions, for the purpose of limiting any wait by business. This amendment, however, while at the end of the process—and while final orders will, of course, be more limited in number than national security assessments undertaken—seeks to add potentially significant further delay without a clear benefit. There is also a risk that, depending on how long it takes the ISC to produce its report, the Secretary of State could be timed out of making a final order at all, as the tests for extending the assessment period do not currently allow for an extension due to ISC scrutiny. It would also, I think, be an unprecedented role for a parliamentary committee, although I have no doubt that others such as the noble Lord, as an ex-Cabinet Secretary, will have a much better sense of precedent in this area.

The report laid before Parliament, which this amendment would require, would be based solely on intelligence. It would therefore likely need to be so highly redacted as to make it uninformative. I can instead assure the noble Lord that, in making a final order, the Secretary of State will draw on information and expertise from across government, including the intelligence agencies, to ensure that he has all the information he needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a poacher turned gamekeeper, as a fully signed-up member of the rolled-up trouser-leg and funny handshake brigade. For many years in the intelligence world, I hated the thought that government, Parliament or anyone else could look at my intelligence; how much nicer not to give any of that away. I am very glad that system does not work in this country. We have set up a mechanism whereby Parliament can see that highly sensitive intelligence that all of us involved in that world are immediately nervous when anyone touches. Of course if you have that intelligence, you want to hang on to it and not tell other people about it. It sounds to me as though the BEIS Select Committee will be delighted that it is to be the one making all the decisions based on the intelligence that it has. I do not really like that as a way of going forward. I could say a lot more about the response from the Government because I am not very happy about it.

Can the Minister look again at this debate and what has been asked for, because it seems very sensible for the ISC, which after all was tasked in the Justice and Security Act to do exactly this? The BEIS Committee was not. It is not too much to ask that this is looked at; it sounds very sensible.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his courteous comments. Of course I will review the contents of this whole debate to see whether there are any lessons that I can learn from it.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I much regret that, due to my own IT incompetence, I was unable to speak today. However, I say to the Minister as politely as I can that he has completely misread the House, and I think he will have to look at this again. The ISC is not a bog-standard Select Committee. I have a question for him, based essentially on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, which I do not think he referred to. How could rumours about government action in respect of a private company which may be market-sensitive be dealt with to public satisfaction unless the ISC has oversight? It would not matter if the ISC reports were redacted; Parliament would accept that; the media would accept it. The Government have a democratic licence to operate only because of Parliament. The Minister should go away and, before Report, explain to those who have spoken and other Peers where the Government’s democratic licence to operate is in this respect, having ruled out parliamentary scrutiny in a very precise way.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I apologise to noble Lords if they feel that I have misread the mood of the House. The key point that I want to make in response to him is that the BEIS Select Committee—I say it again—is part of our parliamentary scrutiny and has democratic accountability in the other place. The Government are not avoiding scrutiny of the investment security unit; they are putting it somewhere where they believe that the scrutiny will be most effective, looking at the work of the unit in the round. They believe that the most effective overall scrutiny of the ISU will be found in the BEIS Select Committee.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. He said that the remit of the ISC under the 2013 Act does not cover the work of BEIS. If that is the case, that justifies even more an amendment to the Bill to amend the 2013 Act to put in such a provision. If the Government wanted to do it, that would be the way. I do not think that we should use the law as an excuse. The law can be changed; we are making an Act now.

I have just double-checked the names, but can the Minister confirm that the current members of the BEIS Select Committee are not all even privy counsellors and certainly do not have security clearance which goes beyond Privy Council? Can he confirm that there is no House of Lords Member on the BEIS Select Committee? Can he also confirm that nothing that we have done in any of these amendments to give the ISC a role removes the role of the BEIS Select Committee—in other words, it can still look at the industrial or investment parts? We are not taking those away from it, so it would continue to have the role that he has spelt out for it, but we are adding another bit. Can he confirm those three points?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. First, I repeat that there is no barrier to the BEIS Select Committee handling highly classified, top-secret material. Appropriate arrangements can be put in hand to ensure that the members of that committee have access, after processes have been gone through, to that material. Secondly, of course, the committee is a committee of the other House —that is self-evident. I come back to my core point. Where the agencies which report to the ISC have done work of relevance to this, the ISC will be able to speak to them about such work, but that is very different from the ISC being responsible for monitoring the work of the ISU, which goes far wider than the responsibilities of the ISC. I have deep respect for the opinions that have been put forward, but I am afraid that I do not agree with them.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to remedy an omission from my earlier remarks, to some extent stimulated by the response of the Minister. During my time in the other place, I was a member of the Trade and Industry Committee, the Defence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. Unless things have changed very considerably, in my time as a member of these committees we were never admitted to intelligence of the quality which is available on a daily basis to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We were never required to sign the Official Secrets Act, which is an obligation incumbent upon those who wish to serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Since the nominations are made by party leaders, it is not unknown for reservations to be expressed about the reliability of a possible member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the result being that the leader of the party in question determines to withdraw that nomination. To suggest that the quality of information available is the same in Select Committees on security matters as that available to the Intelligence and Security Committee is to misunderstand the different obligations incumbent on membership.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for these comments and in no way want to second-guess the deep experience that he has on these matters. But I repeat yet again: there seems to be a worry that BEIS Select Committee members will not have sufficient security clearance to be able to do the work required of them. I repeat from this Dispatch Box that there is no barrier to BEIS Select Committee members handling top-secret and other classified material, subject to agreement between the department and the chair of the committee on appropriate handling. I am not sure that I can say more than that, but they will be able to have the information they need to carry out their functions.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this debate. I am afraid that I have to say to the Minister that, while he may have used his own words in answer to the debate, he used the brief that would have been used by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I do not want to decry the work of the BEIS Select Committee at all, but the Minister gave the game away when he said that access to highly classified intelligence for the Select Committee would be based on an agreement between the chair and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would control it. In that case, Parliament would be in the position of Glendower in “Henry IV”, who says:

“I can call spirits from the vasty deep.”


So you can, is the reply:

“But will they come when you do call for them?”.


Under the memorandum of understanding, the Intelligence and Security Committee has a right to get the intelligence that it needs. A Select Committee of the House of Commons does not have that similar right.

What has run through this debate, from everybody who has spoken apart from the Minister, is that we want one simple thing. We want to make proper use of a tool that is there for Parliament and has been created for this purpose: the Intelligence and Security Committee. There are various ways of doing it, as has been made clear. It could be by annual reports; it could be by changing the terms of reference, which can be done so easily; it could be a transfer to the Cabinet Office, which would bring it within the terms of the ISC.

I suggested that this should be a real-time operation. If I may say so, the Minister misrepresented that. There is no reason why that should extend the time necessary for the assessment. The Intelligence and Security Committee will be looking at one thing—the highly classified intelligence on which the Secretary of State is acting—and reporting on that. That is not a huge job. The ISC could say quite shortly that it was satisfied, and 99 times out of 100, I think, it would say that there were good grounds for the order that the Secretary of State was proposing to be make. I think that could quite easily be done within the 30 days allowed under the Bill for the assessment. It would not even need to make use of the 15-day extension.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

75: Clause 53, page 33, line 6, leave out from “followed” to end and insert “when a provision of or made under this Act requires or allows a notice, order, notification or document of any kind to be given or served.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the power to make regulations in clause 53(1) in relation to the procedure for service of documents extends to cover all of the different types of notices, orders and documents under the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I turn to the amendments relating to information sharing and data protection. As always, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley, who we know examines these Bills with such a critical eye that nothing can escape his eagle gaze. The first amendment relates to Clause 54 and seeks to require the Secretary of State, when deciding whether to disclose information to an overseas public authority, to have regard to whether there is a reciprocal agreement with the country or territory to whose authority the disclosure would be made.

As this clause is about sharing information, I believe that my noble friend is envisaging the reciprocal agreement with another country or territory to be in relation to the sharing of information for a specified purpose, such as facilitating the exercise by the Secretary of State of his functions under the Bill or the prevention or detection of crime. Clause 54(7) specifies certain considerations that the Secretary of State must have particular regard to when deciding whether to disclose information to an overseas public authority. It includes consideration of whether the law of the country or territory to whose authority the disclosure would be made provides protection against self-incrimination in criminal proceedings corresponding to the protection provided in the UK, as well as consideration of whether the matter is sufficiently serious to justify making the disclosure. The clause permits the Secretary of State to disclose information but, I stress, does not require him to do so.

The Secretary of State, as often elsewhere in the Bill, will be subject to public law duties when deciding whether to share information with an overseas public authority under this clause. These duties include a requirement to take all relevant considerations into account, although this will obviously depend on the facts of each case, and whether there is a reciprocal agreement in place. In some circumstances, for example where information is to be shared for the purpose of protecting national security, it may well be appropriate to proceed in the absence of a reciprocal agreement. When deciding whether to disclose information to an overseas public authority, the Secretary of State will also be bound by the data protection legislation provisions, which include certain restrictions in respect of international transfers of personal data and consideration of appropriate safeguards. There is therefore no need to include additional restrictions in the Bill.

I turn to Amendment 77, which relates to Clause 57. It seeks to ensure that when considering whether a disclosure or use of information pursuant to a duty or power under Parts 1 to 4 of the Bill would contravene the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, the duty or power itself would need to be taken into account. A similar provision exists in relation to consideration of whether a disclosure or use of information would contravene the data protection legislation. Clause 57 states that the provisions in Parts 1 to 4 containing a duty or power to disclose or use information do not authorise a contravention of the data protection legislation as defined in the Data Protection Act 2018. The clause also sets out that such a duty or power to disclose or use information does not authorise contravention of Parts 1 to 7, or Chapter 1, Part 9, of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. That Act contains provisions about conducting interception, including restrictions on use and disclosure of intercepted information. These are standard provisions included where legislation concerns the use or disclosure of information.

To reassure my noble friend, there is no call for the Secretary of State to consider the duty or power to disclose or use information under the Bill to determine whether a particular disclosure or use pursuant to it would contravene the Investigatory Powers Act. This will simply require consideration of what the relevant provisions of the Act prohibit, and none of the prohibitions turns on whether a duty or power exists or its terms. In comparison, the data protection legislation provides a framework for processing personal information but allows for other provisions, such as those found in the Bill, to specify more details about the use or sharing of personal information. Therefore, a duty or power to disclose or use information under the Bill will need to be taken into account when considering whether a disclosure or use of personal information pursuant to it would contravene the data protection legislation. As explained, this is not required when considering compatibility with the Investigatory Powers Act, due to the differing nature of the legislation.

Therefore, while I understand the objectives of my noble friend and his desire, as always, to be helpful, for the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept these amendments, and I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw or not move them.

National Security and Investment Bill

Lord Grimstone of Boscobel Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bilimoria, for the opening amendments in this group, which give rise to various considerations. We recognise the caveat in Amendments 20 and 24 to mitigate the impact of hostile actors going to complex lengths to hide their interests in a qualifying asset or entity. It is also understandable to set de minimis thresholds. Having the powers in the definition still requires a thought process to initiate using them. There have been several instances in which hostile actors have behaved entirely transparently that have not been identified and prevented. Indeed, mitigating actions may have been rejected even by the Government.

One needs only to recall the debate over the growing dependency of many nations on China and the resultant rejection of identifying potential harm that could result. It could be raised here regarding dependency on research skills and partnerships in the technology fields, with security implications. Indeed, the Government’s assessment of risk can be mysterious. In relation to the Bill, perhaps what we need to see are the ways in which the Government will actively identify evolving and growing risks, whether or not they hide behind complex organisations or a complex process of additionality. Has the Minister considered this and when a risk may change its colours?

To the proponents of the £10 million threshold in the amendments, is there some logic or any evidence that this is indeed the correct level, other than that other jurisdictions may have chosen it? The valuation of some of these types of asset is hard to quantify and the value of a database code or algorithm will be considered much greater once in the hands of a hostile intent. The intention not to overburden SMEs with the bureaucracy of this regime is worthy and commendable, but may not be easily carried out. How many SMEs would be excluded as a consequence and would it also benefit the department not to have to devote resources to excessive screenings of transactions?

Amendments 52A, 55A, 64A and 67A, also thoughtfully proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Clement-Jones, are for the fast-track procedure for notifications. Has such a procedure been considered by the Government? It has yet to be identified how the regime proposed by the Bill will deal with so-called everyday transactions in the business community and the amount of resources that will need to be committed to so-called evidently non-controversial activity. Would this allow the possibility of experience gained through the Bill to mature into a more workable format?

In the drafting of the procedure, care would need to be taken regarding the person being given the ability to give the relevant notice. In one interpretation it could be the company initiating such a request, not only the person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. That would result in everyone requesting a fast-track procedure. The Minister’s remarks will be interesting in this respect. Overall, it would be perhaps best to ensure that the regime is set up in the first instance in the Bill to be properly resourced and to have properly identified targets for all its notifications.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley for his Amendments 20 and 24, my noble friend Lord Lansley for his Amendment 25, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendment 26 and my noble friend Lord Leigh and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their package of Amendments 52A, 55A, 64A and 67A. I will take them sequentially.

I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Leigh and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we must be careful to do nothing that diminishes the entrepreneurial or innovative spirit in our country or to diminish the attractiveness of this country for investment. You might imagine that, as the UK’s Minister for Investment, I am especially concerned about the latter point. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I have spoken to many investors and VCs and, once the rationale and the processes of the Bill are explained to people, I have been very reassured by the reception that the Bill has had. The key point one has to explain is that the investment screening unit will be a rational unit that will seek to minimise time spent and maximise efficiency wherever it can.

With the permission of my noble friend Lord Leigh, I will address his Amendments 20 and 24 together, given that both relate to introducing de minimis thresholds into the regime. Clause 7 defines the meaning of “qualifying entity” and “qualifying asset” for the purposes of the Bill. These definitions underpin reasonable and proportionate powers for the Secretary of State to scrutinise acquisitions of control of qualifying entities and assets where that raises national security risks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his three amendments in this group and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding his name to the first, Amendment 21. He has an alternative to Amendment 27, Amendment 26, which was in the previous group, but both amend activities in general, so that they are more specifically attached to the person controlling those activities. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has recognised his amendment as “rogue”.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, queries the extension of Clause 7(3)(b) to suppliers of

“goods or services to persons in the United Kingdom”,

and asks for an explanation. Have there been previous incidents and what specific goods or services were involved, with what implications?

Clause 7(6) specifies land as well as “moveable property” and, in relation to Amendment 27 of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, gives rise to my reflections on the question of land and its use. While clearly an asset, the distinction is not made between the Bill’s application to ownership of land, in the sense of control, and any lease of its use, whereby a person other than the owner could be said to be in control. The Bill merely has the words “used in connection” to activities. Is this distinction relevant and what proof would be needed to clarify which person is in control of land?

One of the key sentences in the Government’s Statement of Policy Intent is in the section on acquirers:

“Clearly, national security risks are most likely to arise when acquirers are hostile to the UK’s national security, or when they owe allegiance to hostile states or organisations.”


Land, and the use of it in such a context, is made relevant as a qualifying asset. Yes, an operation needs to operate somewhere and will require land. Does this require any further reflection with regard to the workings of the regime? Can land in a particular country be considered a particular threat?

Amendment 32, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, to Clause 9, regarding control of assets, returns us to Clause 7(6). The Minister may wish merely to identify the strategic risk attaching to land in particular locations only.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome these amendments from my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which concern the extraterritorial application of the call-in power. Amendment 21 seeks to ensure that where an entity is formed or recognised under the law of a country or territory outside the UK, it will be a qualifying entity only if it carries on activities in the UK but not where it supplies goods or services to persons in the UK, as the clause currently provides.

I am afraid that I was slightly unclear on the precise intent of Amendments 27 and 32 so, for the benefit of the Committee, I am interpreting them as seeking to remove the provision currently in Clause 7(6)(b): that an asset situated outside the UK or the territorial sea is a qualifying asset if it is used in connection with the supply of goods or services to persons in the UK. This would mean that an asset situated outside the UK or the territorial sea is a qualifying asset only if it is used in connection with certain activities carried on in the UK.

It is important that entities formed or recognised outside the UK which provide goods or services to persons in the UK are captured through the Bill as their acquisition may give rise to national security risks to the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked for some examples, and I am happy to provide them. For example, a foreign-registered company that does not carry on activities in the UK may still provide essential goods or services to parts of our critical national infrastructure. If a hostile party were to acquire control over that supplier, it could use that control to degrade our infrastructure. To take another example, imagine an overseas supplier of machinery or compounds to a UK-based entity producing cutting-edge advanced materials for our military. Control over that supplier could provide a hostile party with an insight into certain military capabilities or a means to sabotage the work of the UK entity to harm our military. As my noble friend Lady Noakes recognised, this could have a severe effect on national security.

Similarly, it is important that land and moveable property assets situated outside the UK or the territorial sea and intellectual property assets used in connection with the supply of goods or services to persons in the UK are also captured as their acquisition can give rise to national security risks to the UK. For example, as I have said previously, the acquisition of a wind farm situated outside the UK and its territorial sea that provides critical energy supplies to UK industry and consumers may give rise to national security risks, even though it is not strictly used in connection with activities in the UK. If the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would like to hear this example a third time, he only has to lay a further amendment.

Of course, any extraterritorial use of the powers under this Bill should be proportionate as well as meeting the other tests in the Bill. That is why the Bill explicitly sets out a UK nexus requirement that means that the Secretary of State may intervene to assess an acquisition overseas only where it has a clear connection to the UK. Remedies may be imposed at the end of an assessment only if the Secretary of State reasonably considers that they are necessary and proportionate for the purpose of safeguarding the UK’s national security. As such, the extent of an acquisition’s connection to the UK will be a clear factor in that decision.

The Bill also explicitly limits the application of remedies to persons outside the UK to those who have a clear connection to the UK—for example, UK nationals or companies, or those who carry on business in the UK.

I am conscious that I may not have answered fully the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. If I reflect, after looking at Hansard, that I have not, I may write to him. I understand, taking these amendments as a group, the desire to probe the Government in this area, but I hope that, with this explanation, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am probably being extremely stupid here, so please forgive me. In the first example of a foreign business supplying a critical operation in this country, I understand that that would be a problem were it taken over by a hostile nation. Let us imagine that a Belgian company, or perhaps a Canadian one, is being taken over by a company or a regime that we consider hostile. What is the Secretary of State’s next move in stopping it happening? I do not understand what the Secretary of State’s remit is over that Belgian or Canadian company, other than to suggest to the recipient of the supplies in this country that they have to change their supplier.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for that question. I assure him that it is not stupid. I think the answer is in what I said towards the end of my speech. The Bill explicitly limits the application of remedies to persons outside the UK to those who have a clear connection with the UK, for example, UK nationals or companies, or those who carry on business in the UK. That provides the nexus back to the UK, which I think the noble Lord was searching for.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I was extremely relieved to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that Amendment 26 was a rogue amendment. He and I had both put our names to it originally and I withdrew mine. When I found that he had left his there, I thought he had seen some angle and I was going to be blown apart and take a torpedo amidships. I am grateful to hear that it was a rogue amendment.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the examples. I am still reaching for the implications of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I am not yet convinced that the qualifying entity idea has been probed enough, given that it has proved effective in the Bribery Act and has a similar purpose there. I will read what he has to say, think about it and maybe bring this back for a further discussion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I am still slightly reeling from having to find names of people long since in my past, but maybe Hansard can piece things together.

We have heard today, both in this group and in others, and in the representations that we have all seen, that there are considerable investor concerns about bits of the Bill, some of which Amendments 29 and 72 in particular seek to address. It is important to recognise, although it has been made clear by people in Committee, that the Bill marks a radical transformation of national security screening for mergers and acquisitions. It is a new and different regime, so it is essential that the Government not only maintain business confidence but gain more confidence from businesses and the investors in them. That was why, on the first day of Committee, we set out why we thought we needed a definition of national security to provide clarity for businesses and investors and to build trust in the regime.

However, as has been said in this group, one of the things that would help that confidence is better drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right when he says that more work is needed. I know it is the second day back at school, but it feels as if the homework has been self-marked and now needs a slightly more thorough look. As everyone has said, it is not that anyone has objections to the purpose of the Bill; the concerns are about the wording and perhaps the breadth of its scope.

Clause 8 defines the circumstances in which a person gains control of a qualifying entity, thus constituting a trigger event that may be subject to assessment under the regime. This is clearly a key part that must be got right. Amendment 29 would narrow the third circumstance to make sure that it does not capture minority investor veto rights, as has already been mentioned. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether it is expected that minority investment veto rights would be captured.

The group of amendments raises some broad questions about the number of cases in which a person gains control of a qualifying entity. We are interested in why other cases are not included. We do not necessarily want them included but want to work out the limits that brought certain things to be put in the Bill. It is quite interesting to know what is not there. For example, is an acquisition involving state-owned entities or investors originating in a country of risk to UK national security not a concern? It is not mentioned. Neither is a person who becomes a major debt holder and could therefore gain influence over the entity’s operation and policy. Is that not of interest? It is not that I want to include them, but I am really interested in how the definitions were put together. Maybe the Government, either in writing afterwards because it may be more detailed, or in answer today could spell out why these particular cases were selected and the sort of advice that was taken in the selection process.

Amendment 97, which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has discussed, raises the question of why a former partner should remain a person of concern. Probably all of us here have had difficulties with being a politically exposed person, a PEP. We have found it very difficult sometimes just to open or become a signatory to a charity’s accounts because of being a PEP. A number of difficulties were had, but I think they have been got over now after some work in this House. It really did affect those of us who have step-children and former partners and siblings we never see, and things like that.

This issue needs a little more clarification and protection, if you like. No investor or anybody involved in this wants to get caught up by something which they could not have thought at the time was of any interest. I understand that it might look suspicious if somebody divorced their partner two days before to get rid of some assets, but this is a very wide net. Perhaps the Minister can explain why this clause is needed and needs to be drawn quite as widely. This is a net that would catch whales, never mind tiddlers.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by briefly extending my thanks to my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Lansley for tabling the amendments in this group relating to the circumstances determining the control of entities in the Bill, as well as arrangements and the impact of final orders on contracts.

I am conscious of the complexity of some of the matters that we are debating. If I am not able to explain or elucidate these points fully in my comments, I will of course write to noble Lords. I will also be happy to discuss them with noble Lords outside the Committee. Some of these things are quite difficult to get straight across a table like this.

I will start by addressing my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s Amendment 29. For the purposes of the Bill, Clause 8 sets out the circumstances in which a person gains control of a qualifying entity. It explains the four ways in which control can be gained. Subsection (6) sets out the third trigger event:

“The third case is where the acquisition is of voting rights in the entity that (whether alone or together with other voting rights held by the person) enable the person to secure or prevent the passage of any class of resolution governing the affairs of the entity.”


I think that there is broad support for that concept. However, Amendment 29 seeks to narrow this so that only acquisitions of such voting rights over matters that are equivalent to those which require the passing of ordinary or special resolutions under the Companies Act 2006 would be a trigger event.

I sincerely pay tribute to my noble friend for seeking to ensure that the regime is as reasonable and proportionate as possible. I believe that his intent is very much to seek to exclude acquisitions of minority veto rights from constituting trigger events. However, the Government consider that the Bill already achieves this goal to some extent as subsection (6), which my noble friend seeks to amend, is of course subject to the qualifying provision in subsection (7), which explains how references to voting rights in an entity apply to different sorts of entity.

In the case of an entity that has a share capital, this means voting rights conferred on shareholders to vote at general meetings of the entity on all or substantially all matters. In the case of an entity that does not have a share capital—this is where some complexity arises—this means the voting rights conferred on members to vote at general meetings of the entity on all or substantially all matters. The important words in both cases are

“all or substantially all matters.”

I therefore suggest, with deference to my noble friend, that minority veto rights would be captured by subsection (6) only where such voting rights provide the holder with a right to vote on all or substantially all matters, which perhaps takes it rather beyond the worry that some people had about these minority rights being constrained.

I hope that this puts the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, at rest but, again, if a further discussion is needed to clarify how this works, I would be very happy to hold one. I also hope that the Committee agrees that it is only right that minority veto rights, in circumstances where they really are broad enough to cover all or substantially all matters, should be in scope of the Bill. For all intents and purposes, they are the same as majority rights if they are able to do that.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for Amendment 30 in respect of Clause 8 and the definition of control of entities for the purposes of the Bill. This clause reflects the fact that there are ways of obtaining control over an entity other than just acquiring shares or voting rights at significant thresholds. As part of the new regime—I say without excuse that we have made this embracing because of the importance of national security—the Secretary of State must be able to scrutinise lower stakes of shares and votes or other rights or interests acquired by a person that allow them materially to influence the policy of the entity. This is consistent with the UK’s merger framework, and businesses and investors alike have welcomed our adoption of the familiar material influence concept that they have been accustomed to under the Enterprise Act 2002.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, first, I express my warm thanks to my noble friend Lady Noakes, who happily introduced Amendment 97 far better than I would have. I had neglected to notice that we had reached Schedule 1, since we had not even reached the clause that introduced it. Not noticing that was entirely my fault.

If I may, I will go away and read what my noble friend said about Amendment 98, because it is purely a matter of trying to get the drafting right. He may well be correct on that.

On the other two amendments, I kindly ask my noble friend to reflect. The issue about former spouses reflects what is said in Section 127 of the Enterprise Act 2002, but this includes cohabitees, who are not in Section 127, which was subsequently amended to include civil partners. “Associated persons” has turned into “connected persons” and has broadened in ways that nobody told us was a policy.

My other point about the Enterprise Act is that I do not understand what my noble friend is saying. Earlier, he told us that the Government would not issue new guidance about material influence, because the CMA has issued guidance. I have read the CMA’s guidance and it clearly includes reference to obtaining control by stages. Obtaining control by stages, in Section 29 of the Enterprise Act 2002, includes a reference to that

“person or group of persons … materially to influence the policy of … the enterprise … to a greater degree”.

I have not invented this; it is in the Enterprise Act 2002 now. If my noble friend proposes to use the CMA’s guidance and says that everybody is happy that we are using an established understanding of what material influence is, I suggest we go away and look at whether we can use the language and guidance of the Enterprise Act to make it consistent with the practice that people have understood for the best part of 20 years.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend very much for those comments. I will reflect on them and communicate with him.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

This covers similar territory to Amendment 30 and the answer that we were given to it. I will read that carefully, as some of the answers are complex, as the Minister himself said. I ask that the Minister reads his answer carefully because, knowing what he knows from his previous life, there will come a realisation that we are not quite where we should be on this.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I commit to reading the questions and answers carefully to make sure that they match up with each other as far as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no new information to bring to the Committee. As we have heard, a number of transactions appear likely to be caught under the Bill which are probably outwith the intention of the authors of the Bill. I think the Minister has to explain why these provisions are in it, rather than noble Lords who tabled amendments having to explain why the provisions should be taken out. We look forward to his explanation of that and, perhaps, his reassurance to the Committee that the Bill is really fit for purpose across the whole of the UK, including for the Scottish legal system.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, with thanks to all noble Lords who have spoken with such knowledge and eloquence on the amendments tabled, I will begin by speaking to Amendments 31 and 33 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The noble Lord, supported by my noble friend, clearly raises important questions on the juxtaposition of Scottish law with the powers that we are looking at in this group.

I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for having supported this and, if I may, rather than attempting to deal with these points on the hoof I will take them away. I commit to being in communication with noble Lords as to what needs to be done, if anything, in relation to them. More generally, perhaps putting the important Scottish points on one side for the moment, I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that the Bill has to work for every part of the United Kingdom.

These amendments concern Clauses 8 and 9 and the circumstances where acquisitions of control of entities and assets take place for the purposes of the Bill. They seek, I believe, to ensure that rights or interests in, or in relation to, entities and assets held by way of security are exempt from the regime, on the understandable basis that lending and debt arrangements do not give rise to control. Let me agree right away with the thrust of the concern expressed by the noble Lord and my noble friend. The Government do not consider that the provision of loans and finance is automatically a national security issue. Indeed, it is part of a healthy business ecosystem which enables businesses to flourish and grow in this country. Lenders need confidence that they can see a return on ordinary debt arrangements to provide that service, which is of course vital to the proper functioning of the economy. But we must recognise that there are, in a small number of cases, national security risks that can be posed through debt. I will come to this in a moment.

Access to finance is crucial for so many businesses and, to grow and succeed, they will often take out loans secured against the very businesses and assets they have fought so hard to build. That is why the Bill allows the Secretary of State to scrutinise acquisitions of control that take place when lenders exercise their rights over the collateral. The important point is that it is not where the lenders have hypothetical rights but where they exercise their rights over the collateral. This approach is needed because it will prevent hostile actors artificially structuring acquisitions in the form of loans which, following a swift and convenient default—let us put it that way—might otherwise allow them to evade scrutiny. This is a proportionate approach, and one that I am confident will keep finance flowing into UK companies and infrastructure while ensuring that our national security can be protected.

Amendments 34 and 35 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson relate to Clause 10, which, in combination with Schedule 1, sets out various ways in which rights or interests are to be treated, for the purposes of the Bill, as held or acquired. These include indirect holdings whereby, for example, a person holds an interest or right indirectly if that person has a majority stake in an entity that is part of a chain of entities, each of which holds a majority stake in the entity immediately below it, the last company in the chain of which holds the interest or right. That example is relevant because Amendment 34 seeks to ensure that intragroup investments are not covered by Clause 10 and, as a result, Schedule 1 as well.

My interpretation is that my noble friend wishes to prevent internal reorganisations within the same corporate chain of entities from resulting in trigger events by virtue of Schedule 1. I confirm to the Committee that, in the vast majority of cases, that will not have an impact but, depending on the facts of the case, internal reorganisations may be in scope of the Bill. That is because there may be rare cases in which internal reorganisations pose national security risks. That may be true even if the ultimate beneficial owner is the same before and after the trigger event: for example, if there are concerns about changes to the level of control acquired by other links in the chain as a result of the internal reorganisation.

Clause 10(2)(b), which the amendment seeks to amend, is therefore important, because it makes it clear that in circumstances where a person is already treated as holding an interest or right, when something happens that would be regarded as the acquisition of that interest or right by the same person, then it is treated as such.

This means, for example, that an ultimate beneficial owner at the top of a corporate chain transferring existing majority holdings held by entities lower down in the chain to those above them could be a trigger event if it can be regarded as an acquisition by virtue of Schedule 1.

Amendment 35 would insert a new subsection into Clause 10 to provide that only one trigger event arises where more than one person is treated as acquiring an interest or right due to the provisions of Schedule 1. I can clearly see that my noble friend is seeking to help the Government by looking to ensure that the investment security unit is not deluged by duplicate notifications by corporate chains each time a new acquisition is made by an entity towards the bottom of the chain.

I can assure him that we are carefully designing the notification process and forms so that, wherever possible in situations such as these, a single notification providing all the details of the entities in the same corporate structure can be considered together. That is different from his amendment, which would seek to provide in the Bill that only one trigger event takes place. I am afraid that the Government consider that this would introduce ambiguity into the Bill, as it would not make it clear which trigger event is the one which takes place, and which should be discounted.

Hostile actors could try to exploit such a provision to avoid scrutiny by using shell companies at the bottom of long and complex corporate chains to acquire sensitive entities and assets. If only one trigger event is considered to take place by virtue of Schedule 1, the entity immediately above it in the chain could notify the acquisition, while not necessarily disclosing the control acquired by more troubling persons higher up the chain. In these circumstances, the amendment would mean that these could not be treated as separate trigger events, whereas surely they should be.

With the arguments I have outlined and my undertaking to write to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh about the important Scottish matters they raised, I ask that the noble Lord agrees to withdraw the amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that comment. Let me take it on the chin and, if I can, answer it.

Some of the hostile actors that we are trying to prevent acquiring sensitive matter are extremely sophisticated and wily. It is not appropriate to go into details, but we know this. We know that they are absolutely capable of structuring transactions to find the most minute loopholes and acquire control of assets that affect our national security. I think we all accept the premise that national security is paramount, and to protect ourselves against these threats we have to have these complex arrangements.

I completely understand noble Lords’ points that some of the things we are describing are complex almost to the point of absurdity. However, they have to be if we are to protect ourselves against these hostile actors. This is key and something that we will have to keep coming back to. It is why it will be so incumbent on the investment security unit to act sensibly and pragmatically. When things have to be notified to catch the important fish—in the noble Lord’s analogy—they will have to be dealt with quickly and moved out; otherwise, we risk circumventing the very thing that we are trying to avoid with this Bill, which is threats to our national security.

Economic Partnership Agreement: Kenya

Lord Grimstone of Boscobel Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for tabling this debate, and I welcome the opportunity for an informed discussion of the UK-Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement and the Government’s wider approach to securing continuity in our trading relationships with the whole of the East African Community. Of course, this work is so important to UK and east African citizens and businesses alike. In view of the time constraints, I will restrict my comments to the substance of the debate.

It is a great pleasure to see parliamentary scrutiny in action in this debate, living up to the commitments that we made during the progress of the Trade Bill—in particular, following what I like to think of as the “Purvis convention” in the way that we approach these matters. I thank all those who have contributed to this debate, and I will try to respond to the many insightful and well-informed points that have been raised. In particular, the expertise and commitment of the IAC members never fail to inspire me. If I do not fully respond to all the points, I will of course write to noble Lords after the debate.

What a pleasure it is to have a noble Lord choose this debate as the occasion for his maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, made an observant, judicious and eloquent speech, befitting his nearly 40 years of illustrious service to this country’s diplomacy at the highest levels. I know I speak on behalf of all noble Lords in saying that we not only welcome his presence but eagerly anticipate his future contributions, to the advantage of the quality and expertise of this House’s proceedings.

I also thank the House of Lords International Agreements Committee and its officials for the detailed examination of our continuity agreements, as set out in its Scrutiny of International Agreements report. In responding, I will cover three main points: the UK’s approach to trade continuity with Kenya, our ambitions for a regional deal with the whole of the EAC, and our approach to the ratification of this agreement.

First, as I know this was a matter of concern to a number of noble Lords, I reiterate the UK’s objective of achieving a regional trade agreement with the whole of the EAC. We remain absolutely committed to building a strong trading relationship with the whole EAC that will create jobs and prosperity in east Africa. It is very much our intention that the agreement we have signed with Kenya is a stepping-stone towards even stronger regional integration in future.

Let me give a little of the background to how we ended up where we are today. Back in January 2020, the former Minister for Trade Policy wrote to the EAC’s secretary-general to reinforce the UK’s ambition to work in partnership with the EAC secretariat to build a strong trading relationship that will create jobs and prosperity in east Africa. In so doing, he proposed a meeting in February 2020 between the UK and representatives from the secretariat and all partner states to find a way to replicate the effects of the EU’s current trading arrangements between the UK and the EAC, and to avoid any disruption in our existing trade with the EAC partner states.

We have continued since that date to engage with the secretariat and partner states, but during these discussions the EAC informed us that some partner states were unable to begin negotiations with the UK because of some domestic preoccupations. However, they understood the need to maintain trade continuity and provide certainty for businesses and citizens in all partner states as we approached the end of the transition period. It was therefore on this basis that the UK and Kenya decided to negotiate this agreement, ensuring that our discussions were open to all EAC partner states to join. The fact is that no partner state chose to join these discussions, but I reassure noble Lords that we have left the door firmly open.

In accordance with article 143 of the agreement, any state that is a contracting party to the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community is able to accede to this agreement in future. Indeed—some news hot off the press—noble Lords may have seen that on Saturday the EAC Heads of State held their annual summit. One of the things they considered was participation in trade agreements. The Heads of State provided approval to an approach enabling some partner states to proceed to implement the EU’s agreement with the EAC ahead of others.

I am happy that this pragmatic approach by the Heads of State is exactly in keeping with the approach that we have taken in our EPA, and reassured that such a style of approach has now been approved at the EAC Heads of State level. If that is what the Heads of State have decided, I gently say: is it right for us to question this approach? I hope this will put at rest the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and those of other noble Lords if they feel that we have somehow been a disruptive force in the EAC in these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, were also concerned about this point.

The agreement we have secured will ensure that companies operating in Kenya, including British businesses, can continue to benefit from duty-free quota access to the UK market for a range of important products, including vegetables and cut flowers. It will support jobs and economic development in Kenya and avoid possible disruption to UK businesses such as florists, which will be able to maintain tariff-free supply routes for Kenya’s high-quality flowers. It will also benefit many of the approximately 2,500 UK businesses exporting goods to Kenya each year, including many UK suppliers of machinery, electronics and technical equipment, where continued tariff-free access will be guaranteed.

I turn to the UK’s approach to ensuring trade continuity with Kenya in response to the committee’s request for further detail on the options considered. As one of the largest economies in east Africa, Kenya is of course an important trading partner for the UK. However, as the only EAC partner state that is not a least-developed country, it faced the imposition of new tariffs if we had been unable to secure a deal at the end of the transition period. Kenya faced reverting to less preferential trading arrangements under the UK’s generalised scheme of preferences. Without a deal in place, assuming that the current patterns of trade remain unchanged in future, the annual increase in duties on our imports from Kenya was estimated to be around £10.5 million in 2021. In contrast, as least-developed countries—and this is the important point—all other EAC partner states’ duty-free, quota-free access to the UK was guaranteed under the GSP.

In its report, the committee asked the Government to explain why the UK had decided not to replicate the EU’s market access regulation. The agreement that we have signed allows for the effects of that regulation to be replicated in all material respects with regard to Kenya. Providing permanent duty-free, quota-free access for Kenyan exports benefits UK-Kenyan trade, which was worth £1.4 billion in 2019. The agreement, taken together with the GSP, ensures that trade continuity is guaranteed for all EAC partner states.

While the UK had proposed a no-deal transitional protection measure to Kenya in 2019, that had been developed only to provide an additional 18 months to conclude trade negotiations with certain partners who faced the imposition of new tariffs in the event of a no-deal EU exit. However, as the withdrawal agreement reached between the UK and the EU in October 2019 included an 11-month transition period until December 2020, that gave us the additional time that we needed to conclude outstanding negotiations. The no-deal transitional protection measure then became no longer appropriate.

I turn to the Government’s approach to the ratification of the agreement. In my letter of 9 February 2021, I outlined the steps taken by the Government in accordance with the statutory process for laying agreements under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The Government believe that the explanatory materials published alongside the agreement on 17 December were sufficient and we therefore made the decision not to extend CRaG, which concluded on 10 February. However, I can confirm—and this was absolutely the right thing to do, in accordance with the commitments that I made from this very Dispatch Box during the passage of the Trade Bill—that the Government have not yet ratified the agreement, which we have delayed deliberately until after today’s debate in order to ensure that Parliament has had the opportunity to effectively scrutinise the text.

The UK-Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement provides stability and certainty for UK and Kenyan businesses alike. It guarantees permanent duty-free, quota-free access to UK markets for one of the largest economies in the region. Without it, Kenya would have been left behind through no fault of its own while the other partner states continued to benefit from duty-free, quota-free access to UK markets. That unfairness was an unacceptable outcome for the UK. However, I reiterate that the agreement does not prejudice our approach towards the other EAC partner states. I confirm to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we remain ambitious in our desire to expand the agreement in future, and we have ensured that the agreement contains a clear process for accession.

Before I conclude, I will deal with a point made by my noble friend Lady Sugg and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I reassure noble Lords, with regard to the effect of the funding of previous ODA programmes, that trade and economic development—and building future trade and investment partners, including through helping countries to trade—is one of seven ODA priorities. No final decisions have been made on budgets or allocations to individual programmes, but I am happy to reassure noble Lords that we intend to ensure that TradeMark East Africa can continue its important work in promoting trade to east Africa. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and send copies to the committee and the Library, on his point about the differences between this report and the EU report, and his points about the MoU.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised an important point about human rights. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord: Annex III of the UK’s economic partnership agreement with Kenya replicates language from the Cotonou agreement, and the effect of the Cotonou references to the EU’s economic partnership agreement with the East African Community will make sure that respect for human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance, which are so important to all in this House, are made essential and fundamental elements of the agreement.

In conclusion, therefore, I reiterate my thanks to the committee for its examination of this agreement—which, I repeat, has not yet been ratified—and I respect the committee’s desire for further time, which we have granted today, to enable full scrutiny of its provisions. Our ambition for this agreement was to ensure continuity for Kenya, and I like to feel that we have achieved that ambition.

National Security and Investment Bill

Lord Grimstone of Boscobel Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Grand Committee

I have not had sufficient time to consider whether these and other concerns are met in the inclusion of data infrastructure among the sectors. Will the Minister consider these points in his reply to ensure that the definitions are forward-thinking and cover all critical infrastructure interpretations?

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, I extend my thanks to noble Lords for their invaluable contributions to this debate, which will allow me to clarify some important aspects of the Bill. It is a particular pleasure to be debating these matters with the experienced practitioners around the table, who have direct knowledge of these topics.

I speak first to Amendments 3 and 4, relating to when the Secretary of State can call in a trigger event, as tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. These amendments would limit the use of the call-in power in respect of trigger events that have not yet occurred to those that are in progress. As drafted, as noble Lords have focused on, the Bill provides that call-in notices may be issued in relation to trigger events that are in progress or contemplation, as well as those that have already taken place. This ensures that potential national security risks can be examined at any stage of the process.

The National Security and Investment Bill draws on precedent in this approach. Under the Enterprise Act 2002, the Competition and Markets Authority and the Secretary of State may investigate mergers that are in progress or contemplation. To reassure my noble friends Lord Lansley, Lord Vaizey and Lady Noakes, this is a tried and tested phrase, and I will come back to that in a moment to elucidate further. Using this precedent ensures the NSI Bill is in good company. It would seem strange to limit the scope of intervention on national security if, through the Enterprise Act, an intervention is allowed on other public interest grounds where a merger is in progress or contemplation.

I said I would give some further details of this. The term “in contemplation” is not new. As I have already said, it features in the Enterprise Act 2002 and, importantly, the detailed guidance that has been issued by the Competition and Markets Authority. Let me give some examples of what this phrase means. First, a party may choose to notify the Secretary of State that they are contemplating a trigger event to get the certainty of the Secretary of State’s judgment. Secondly, a party may notify the Secretary of State that another party is contemplating a trigger event, such as if they have received, or become aware of, an offer to buy their business. We expect that in most cases, call-in notices will be issued following a notification, so these are likely not to be uncommon scenarios. Thirdly, a public announcement of a deal may have been made by one or more parties but not yet implemented. As noble Lords will be aware, there are certain publicity requirements for public takeovers, but this could also happen in relation to a private acquisition. Fourthly, a public announcement of a possible offer or a firm intention to make an offer may have been made, which would itself show that an offer was in contemplation.

Any decision by the Secretary of State to call in a trigger, even in contemplation, would, as with other uses of powers in this Bill, be subject to judicial oversight through judicial review. If the Secretary of State had merely found he had been able to read someone’s mind to know they were in contemplation of a transaction, that would be unlikely to satisfy the requirements of a judicial review. I hope I have provided sufficient explanation of the Government’s approach. It is a tried and tested phrase, which I would say is well known in the market. I hope my noble friend, therefore, feels able to withdraw his amendment.

I welcome Amendment 8 from my noble friend Lord Lansley, which seeks to partially define what is meant by the Secretary of State “becoming aware” of the publicised trigger event by replicating provisions in Section 24 of the Enterprise Act 2002. In relation to trigger events that have already taken place, the Secretary of State would only be able to give a call-in notice within six months of becoming aware of the trigger event. The Bill does not currently define what “becoming aware” means.

The Secretary of State will have a strong incentive to call in trigger events that might give rise to national security risks quickly after becoming aware of them, as he will want to address any risks that they present. Similarly, many parties will have a clear incentive to ensure that the Secretary of State is aware of their anticipated or completed trigger events so that they can achieve deal certainty. That is why we encourage parties to notify trigger events to the Secretary of State, rather than to wait for the trigger events to be detected and called in.

In general, we expect the Secretary of State’s market monitoring team to detect trigger events of interest. However, in a limited number of cases, providing for imputed awareness on the part of the Secretary of State where a trigger event has been publicised so it is generally known or readily ascertainable, may open up protracted arguments about whether the trigger event in question was adequately publicised.

I do not disagree that providing for imputed awareness on the part of the Competition and Markets Authority, as the Enterprise Act 2002 does in the context of merger control, is appropriate. But the NSI regime—this is an important point—will deal with a wider range and larger number of acquisitions, with no de minimis thresholds and a strong likelihood that many will not be comprehensively or accurately reported. This presents much greater scope for ambiguity, and for deals, particularly private transactions, to be publicised in ways that may still cause the Secretary of State to be unaware of the precise trigger event in question. This amendment therefore risks opening up the Secretary of State to greater challenge, while still allowing for substantial uncertainty for businesses and investors.

I will now speak to Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendment 10 from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, as both relate to the content of the statement under Clause 3. These amendments seek either to add to the non-exhaustive list of the aspects that the statement may include or otherwise to regulate what can be included in the statement.

I turn first to Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I will put to one side his valid points about sector definitions, as we will return to that topic in a future group. This amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the domestic and future capacity of sectors to promote research and development, and innovation, and to protect national security when preparing the statement.

Supporting the UK’s innovative industries, and research and development, are priorities for the Government. However, the purpose of the Bill is to set up an investment screening regime that is concerned solely with the protection of national security. Therefore, the Secretary of State is able to consider innovation, research and development, and future capacity—very important topics though they are—only in so far as they are relevant to national security risk, when he carries out his functions under the Bill.

Amendment 9 seeks to add to the list of the aspects that the statement may include. Of course, the Government want to promote legitimate economic activity and to minimise unnecessary voluntary notifications. The purpose of this statement is to set out how the Secretary of State expects to use the call-in power. I am afraid that these amendments are not suitable for the statement. The statement looks forwards to future use of the call-in power, not to highlight actions already taken. It sets out how the Secretary of State expects to use the call-in power, and it is not intended to serve as an indicator of wider government action in relation to the regime. It is crucial that the acquirers can look at the statement and that it assists them in coming to a judgment about whether to voluntarily notify. With these points, I hope that noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that careful analysis, but I must admit that I am not wholly reassured as a result. I feel as though we have gone in a spiral of logic and I think we ended up where we began, in a cloud of uncertainty. In particular, I thought the Minister’s arguments on Amendment 9, that the statement was forward-looking not backward-looking, were very circular. It all depends on how the statement is constructed. It can be made both forward-looking and backward-looking simply in the way the Bill is amended. So the argument there was extremely circular.

I will read Hansard extremely carefully, but to me the question about the Secretary of State being unaware means that the Government have decided that the net is going to be extremely wide. We have assurances on the sifting process, but in the end everything falls in until it is thrown out. That, I think, is what worries quite a lot of us. The contemplation point may have some precedent, but the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made the point that these transactions are not just mergers but intellectual property licences, know-how transfer, asset sales and a whole range of things. Is the merger regime fit for purpose for this broad range of transactions?

That is all I want to say at this stage. I thought the Minister valiantly tried to justify the current wording of the Bill, but I do not think he succeeded.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I have had the pleasure of debating these matters at a meeting prior to this Committee, and I must confess that I was probably the author of the fishing analogy, which I may live to regret. The point is that when you are dealing with matters of national security, and these matters are so important, it is perfectly appropriate to use a large net to put the fish in, but then it becomes very important that the way your screening unit works removes fish from that net as expeditiously and efficiently as possible.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, he almost certainly has much greater experience than all of us in this Room combined in advising on transactions. For the avoidance of doubt, sadly the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has not paid me any fees in any matter, as far as I am aware, but I travel in hope. I have to disappoint my noble friend Lord Vaizey, because it does not look like the Minister will accept his very first amendment in whole. On the other hand, I do not think he has provided a slam-dunk answer, as he hoped, to reject Amendments 3 and 4 in particular.

We are very lucky to have the benefit of my noble friend Lord Lansley’s experience and wisdom from the Enterprise Act 2002, and I accept that that is where it came from. However, I do not quite see why there should be a cut-and-paste approach. The CMA will be dealing with a relatively small number of mergers of largely public companies. This will be dealing with all sorts, from minority investments of a few thousand pounds in 15% stakes to IP and—forgive me—a completely different kettle of fish. Therefore, the last thing one wants to do is to have to rely on a traditional review to see this sorted out. That would be hugely expensive and singularly inappropriate for most of the transactions envisaged, which will be of a much larger volume than the CMA and the legislation were structured to deal with. I very much hope that the Minister will have a chance to reflect on this and that he will be persuaded in particular by the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles—arrangements in progress must be strong enough. I beg leave to withdraw.

Trade Bill

Lord Grimstone of Boscobel Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.

1C: Because Parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements is ensured by existing measures and UK standards cannot be changed without further implementing legislation (itself subject to Parliamentary scrutiny).

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Motion A1. I will start by addressing Amendment 1D on the Order Paper, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, concerning the parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements. This is a revised agreement of the previous two that the Commons have decisively rejected. As I have made clear in my previous remarks on this important issue, Parliament plays a vital role in scrutinising our trade agenda. This is a role that we welcome and appreciate. As the United Kingdom embarks on its independent trade policy, it is right that Parliament should be able to hold the Government to account effectively.

The Government have taken steps to ensure that we have robust transparency and scrutiny arrangements in place that reflect our constitution. Noble Lords will be familiar with these by now, I trust, so I will touch on them only briefly. On the new free trade agreements that we are currently negotiating, the Government have provided extensive information to Parliament, including publishing our negotiating objectives, the economic scoping assessments and the Government’s response to the public consultation prior to the start of talks. Throughout the negotiations the Government continue to keep parliamentarians informed of progress, including by holding regular briefings. The Government are also engaging extensively with the relevant Select Committees throughout.

We have also agreed to share the text of each deal with the relevant committees in advance of their being laid before Parliament under the CRaG procedure; they then have the option to produce independent reports on each agreement. Furthermore, if Parliament is not content with a free trade agreement that has been negotiated, the CRaG procedure provides an additional layer of scrutiny. Through this, the other place can prevent ratification indefinitely.

I am well aware of the strength of feeling and the proper interest that the House is taking in these matters, and I have had a number of very useful conversations with noble Lords. I know in particular that my noble friend Lord Lansley would be grateful for some further reassurances beyond what I have said already, and I am happy to state the following.

First, where we publish negotiating objectives for future free trade agreement negotiations, I am sure that this House will rightly and properly take an interest in their contents. If the International Agreements Committee should publish a report on those objectives, I can confirm that the Government will gladly consider that report with interest and, should it be requested, facilitate a debate on the objectives, subject to the parliamentary time available. That is an important concession.

Secondly, on FTAs as part of CRaG, the Government have stated clearly that we will work to facilitate requests, including those from the relevant Select Committees, for debate on the agreements, subject to available parliamentary time. Indeed, the Government have a good record on this. Debates took place last year on the Japan FTA, alongside six other debates on continuity agreements. But to provide reassurance to noble Lords, I would like to state from the Dispatch Box that I cannot envisage a new FTA proceeding to ratification without a debate first having taken place on it, should one have been requested in a timely fashion by the committee. The Government are negotiating world-class agreements and we will proudly promote the benefits of our trade agenda; of course, debates are a good way of doing that.

With all due respect, I feel the need to stress that the elected House has now rejected amendments on parliamentary scrutiny in this Bill and its predecessor a total of five times, most recently by a margin of 75. This House has repeatedly offered tweaked and tinkered amendments on the subject, but regardless of their guise, I have to say that the other place has resoundingly and repeatedly rejected them. I say that with no disrespect whatever, but as a reminder that this House has fulfilled its constitutional obligations and we should be grateful for that. I thank colleagues from across the House for their diligence, but I believe that the time has now come to try to put this issue to bed. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for moving his Motion 1D on a cross-party basis. I put on record, as he did, how enjoyable it was to work with him, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and Commons colleagues of all persuasions to see whether we could progress this important issue. Although I have some sympathy with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I agree with the Minister and others who have spoken that the speeches we have heard draw discussions on the parliamentary scrutiny of international trade deals to a close, for the moment. This issue will not go away, although I believe that the Grimstone rule—if that is what we are to call it—will help us to work through a process to consider trade agreements in the future. That is for the good.

I will make three small points. First, it is difficult to make constitutional change. Anybody who has operated in either House of Parliament knows that to be the case. It should be hard—and it is right that it is—but it is sometimes frustrating if the pace of change does not match some of the aspirations and recognise some of the wrongs committed. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, although we have not managed to set in statute that which a significant majority in this House, across all parties, would have liked, we have agreed a way of working with the Government for the future—the Grimstone rule—that strikes a workable balance between the rights and responsibilities of the Executive and those of Parliament. Time will tell. We are in the right place and no doubt will benefit from the experience to be gained in the next few years, but we should record that progress has been made.

Secondly, one key turning point to have emerged from the discussions is the need to ensure that we have a process, in any future agreement that we might make, which properly engages the devolved Administrations and civil society—and on a sensible timescale. I will come back to that. This Parliament will now need, in the way that it works, to address four major points in any future statutory system, although they will be covered by the Grimstone rule: approval of the initial objectives, review of the progress of negotiations, considerations of the final proposed agreement including changes to existing statutory provisions, and parliamentary approval of the deal and any subsequent changes to legislation that may be required. We have analysed that to the nth degree in our discussions during the last four years; now we have a model for how it can work. If there is good will on both sides, as I think there is, we should let that run for a while before returning to it.

My third point, on which I will end, is that in these debates over the last four years we have made it clear that UK trade policy and the trade deals that will be the basis of our future activity and prosperity are important. They deserve the sort of focus and interest envisaged under the protocols described as the Grimstone rule. We can be confident that, with the work of the Select Committees in the Commons and the International Agreements Committee in the Lords complementing the interests of a range of other bodies, including devolved Administrations and civil society, that debate will continue to be an important aspect of our public policy.

Finally, although we have gone as far as we can on this today, we will keep a close eye on it and look forward to resolving outstanding issues in the not- too-distant future. We have worked closely with the Government and with successive Ministers. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, for their engagement since 2017. We have built a coalition of interest across parties in this and in the other House, which has been rewarding, positive and a model for how issues of this nature can be resolved in the public interest.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I first unreservedly apologise if noble Lords thought that I was, in any way, disparaging the role of this House and the valuable work that it has done on scrutiny, by referring to the votes in the other place. Nothing could have been further from my thoughts, and I hope that noble Lords will accept that.

This has been a good debate and reflects the calibre of discussions that we have repeatedly had on the important issue of scrutiny. The Government have listened to the concerns expressed on this issue and we have moved significantly to set out enhanced transparency and scrutiny arrangements for free trade agreements. This has come almost entirely because of the quality of the debates and the points that have been put by Members of our House.

What have we done? It includes committing to allow time for the relevant Select Committees to report on a concluded FTA before the start of the CRaG process; strengthening the commitments, as I said earlier, which were set out before this debate in a Written Ministerial Statement; and placing the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing and ensuring that it is required to transparently provide independent advice to the Government on whether new FTAs maintain statutory protections in key areas, such as animal welfare and the environment. In addition, the Government have moved on other linked areas such as standards, which we will come to later.

While this is the last time, I hope, that we debate this issue in this Bill, scrutiny is an issue that we will return to when we debate the implementing legislation for future FTAs. The EU model of trade agreement scrutiny evolved over our 50-year membership. I assure noble Lords that we have no intention of taking that long but now, in only month two after the transition period, I urge your Lordships’ House to see the current arrangements as an evolution of our trade treaty scrutiny practices—no doubt an evolution that has further to go. As we find our feet as an independent trading nation, working with parliamentarians in both Houses, I am sure that we will continue to build upon our scrutiny processes, in ensuring that they remain fit for purpose.

As a concluding comment, I would be covered in embarrassment to think that my small contribution to this debate has led to a rule being named after me.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to other colleagues who have spoken in this short debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said, good will has characterised these debates, and it can be sustained—even in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It was never with ill will; it was controversial sometimes, but always well meant.

From my point of view, with good will, and the application of the Grimstone rule—he cannot get away from it now—I welcome the specific additions today that the Government will facilitate a debate where requested on draft negotiating objectives, subject to parliamentary time, and that the Government cannot envisage the circumstances in which they would ratify an international trade agreement when a debate requested by the relevant committee in either House had not yet taken place.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 2B and 3B, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 3C and 3D in lieu.

3C: Insert the following new Clause—
“2A Free trade agreements and genocide
(1) Subsection (2) applies if the responsible committee of the House of Commons publishes a report which—
(a) states that there exist credible reports of genocide in the territory of a prospective FTA counter-party, and
(b) confirms that, in preparing the report, the committee has taken such evidence as it considers appropriate.
(2) If, after receiving a response from the Secretary of State, the committee publishes a report which—
(a) includes a statement to the effect that the committee is not satisfied by the Secretary of State’s response, and
(b) sets out the wording of a motion to be moved in the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (3),
subsection (3) applies.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for the motion mentioned in subsection (2)(b) to be debated and voted on by the House of Commons.
(4) Subsection (5) applies if the responsible committee of the House of Lords publishes a report which—
(a) states there exist credible reports of genocide in the territory of a prospective FTA counter-party, and
(b) confirms that, in preparing the report, the committee has taken such evidence as it considers appropriate.
(5) If, after receiving a response from the Secretary of State, the committee publishes a statement to the effect that—
(a) it is not satisfied by the Secretary of State’s response, and
(b) it seeks a debate on the report, subsection (6) applies.
(6) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report and the Secretary of State’s response to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown.
(7) References in this section to genocide are references to genocide occurring, or continuing, after this section comes into force.
(8) In this section—
“genocide” has the same meaning as in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (see Article 2 of the Convention);
“prospective FTA counter-party” means a state with which the United Kingdom is engaged in formal negotiations for a bilateral free trade agreement;
“the responsible committee of the House of Commons” means the select committee of the House of Commons charged with responsibility for this section;
“the responsible committee of the House of Lords” means the select committee of the House of Lords charged with responsibility for this section.”

3D: Title, Line 1, leave out “the implementation of”

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Motion B I shall with the leave of the House speak also to Motions B1 and B2.

I turn to Commons Amendments 3C and 3D on the Order Paper, concerning genocide and free trade agreements. This amendment was passed in lieu of amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Alton. Perhaps I may begin by clarifying some points of parliamentary procedure concerning these amendments. As noble Lords will be aware, the amendments in the other place were considered on 9 February as part of a so-called package with which the Government disagreed, supporting instead an amendment in lieu tabled by the chair of the Justice Select Committee.

The Lords amendments with which the Government disagreed concerned the most serious of human rights violations—namely, crimes against humanity and genocide. Both amendments sought to involve Parliament, in different ways, in considering the implications of such violations for trade policy, and both sought to impose a duty on the Government to act in specified ways. Accordingly, the Government supported an amendment in lieu which would have the effect of affording Parliament substantive opportunities for scrutiny, in precisely the manner envisaged by your Lordships’ amendments. That is the amendment before the House today, which the Government fully support.

The packaging of amendments is a common, long-standing parliamentary procedure which has come about to assist with the complexities of ping-pong. The practice of grouping together as a package a number of related amendments has developed in later stages of the exchanges between the Houses for the purposes of decision-making as well as debate. As any keen reader of Erskine May will attest, ping-pong is one of our most complex legislative stages. This approach allowed the Government to support the reasonable middle-ground concession now before your Lordships on the Order Paper, which ensures a clear role for Parliament where concerns about genocide are relevant to the UK’s negotiation of bilateral free trade agreements, without breaching the Government’s red line on the courts.

I will now say something about the role of the courts, as there has been some degree of misapprehension on this point in recent debate. Noble Lords have observed, quite rightly, that it is the Government’s long-standing position that the determination of genocide is a matter for a competent court. The question has now been posed on numerous occasions as to why the Government did not support the amendment previously tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It should be recalled that this amendment sought to expand the jurisdiction of the High Court—a civil court—to allow it to make preliminary determinations of genocide.

It is important to distinguish here between the crime of genocide as committed by an individual and violations of international obligations related to genocide that may be committed by a state. States can, for example, be responsible for genocide committed by an individual where that individual’s acts are attributable to the state. The UK has international obligations under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to criminalise genocide committed by individuals. Of course, we have done this in the International Criminal Court Act 2001.

In the UK, criminal courts are competent to try the crime of genocide where it is committed by an individual. Under the 2001 Act, domestic criminal courts in the UK are competent to find individuals guilty of genocide where the case is proved to the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. UK courts can determine whether a genocide has taken place when an individual is charged with the crime, wherever the alleged genocide took place. Both UK nationals and residents can be prosecuted, including those who became resident in the UK after the alleged offence took place.

International courts such as the International Court of Justice are also competent to determine whether states have violated their international obligations in respect of genocide. However—this is the important point—the previous amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, sought to give to a domestic civil court jurisdiction that it does not currently have to make preliminary determinations about the actions of foreign states. I will turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 3E on the Order Paper before us today in just a moment, but first I will conclude these remarks on the Government’s position on the determination of genocide.

Let me be very clear on this point: the Government will not agree to expanding the jurisdiction of our courts to consider cases of state genocide. The Government’s position does not rest on any consideration of whether our courts have the capacity to determine such difficult cases; it is based on strong and very real concerns that expanding the jurisdiction of our courts in this way would bring about a change in our constitutional structures by the back door.

In today’s Amendment 3E in lieu, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and similarly in Amendment 3F in lieu, in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack, we are faced with a different approach. This approach seeks to give the power to make preliminary determinations on genocide to an ad hoc parliamentary committee, comprising five Members from either House, where those Members have all held high judicial office. It should be clear, for the reasons I have just outlined, that such an approach is also problematic, given that it conflicts with the Government’s settled policy on genocide determination that it is for competent courts to make determinations of genocide, not parliamentary committees —even, and I say this with the greatest respect, when they are composed of eminent and learned former judges.

The establishment of an ad hoc parliamentary judicial committee would represent a fundamental constitutional reform. It would blur the distinction between courts and Parliament and upset the constitutional separation of powers. Of course, establishing any new committee would also have implications in terms of parliamentary time and resources, and such a drawn-out process could continue for months or even years. While it is of course up to Parliament to decide how to organise its own affairs, establishing such a committee in legislation would amount to a constitutional reform that I have to say that the Government cannot accept.

Ultimately, the question of how we respond to concerns of genocide as it relates to our trade policy is a political question. Indeed, these Lords amendments envisage as their end point a political process to involve Parliament in holding a Government to account, and they would impose a legal duty on a Minister of the Crown to table a Motion for debate in Parliament once the ad hoc committee and the relevant Select Committee had reported. This requirement for a debate is at the heart of the amendment passed by the other place on 9 February. The Government support that amendment and call on noble Lords to do likewise.

The amendment delivers on your Lordships’ desire for parliamentary scrutiny by ensuring that the Government must put their position on record, in writing, in response to a Select Committee publication raising credible reports of genocide in a country with which we are proposing a new bilateral free trade agreement. The amendment delivers on your Lordships’ wish to impose a duty on the Government to guarantee time for parliamentary debate, in both Houses, should concerns about genocide arise. This is an important point: the amendment also affords to the Commons Select Committee the authority and responsibility to draft the Motion for debate, thereby taking this out of the Government’s hands. This is a significant concession, which ensures that Parliament is in the driving seat.

I want to clear up one last misconception before I conclude. It has been claimed, since the Government supported this amendment, that we are now switching our position away from determination of genocide by competent courts and asking Parliament to make these determinations. Nothing could be further from the Government’s view. I repeat: determinations of genocide are for competent courts, including domestic criminal courts and relevant international courts. We are not asking Parliament to make a determination on whether genocide has occurred. That is a very high standard and perhaps impossible for a committee to do. We are instead supporting a process that guarantees scrutiny and debate where Parliament has established for itself that “credible reports” of genocide exist and this is reflected in its own published reports. This is not the same as a judicial finding, nor is it intended to be. I am afraid we do not support the new amendments in lieu on the Marshalled List that seek to give a quasi-judicial role to an ad hoc committee, because these amendments conflict with settled government policy. We support the concessionary amendment passed in the other place precisely because the Government are committed to preserving their policy on the jurisdiction of the courts. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, we have again heard powerful, reasoned and deeply personal speeches and I deeply sympathise with noble Lords who wish to take a stand on this issue, particularly in light of gross human rights violations committed by the Chinese state against the Uighurs in Xinjiang. For the record, I completely align myself with the abhorrence felt by noble Lords on these matters. We have common ground on that, which is why the UK has led international action, including at the United Nations, to hold China to account for its policies in the region. It is why the Foreign Secretary announced, on 12 January, a series of targeted measures in respect of UK supply chains. This action and the Foreign Secretary’s subsequent words demonstrate to China that there is a reputational and economic cost to its human rights violations in Xinjiang.

Where I differ from the comments we have heard today is that I believe that the amendment passed by the other House, which is before us today, is a reasonable, proportionate and substantive compromise on the part of the Government to ensure that the voice of Parliament is heard on this vital issue. Again, I think it is common ground between all of us that we must have a way for the voice of Parliament to be heard on these issues; the dispute has been about the means by which that voice can be heard. However, I make the point again that the decisions to be made on future trade agreements are political decisions. They are—with absolutely appropriate oversight from Parliament, and I accept that point without reservation—for the Government to make.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6B, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 6C, 6D and 6E in lieu.

6C: Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) If regulations under subsection (1) contain provision about healthcare services, the provision must be consistent with maintaining UK publicly- funded clinical healthcare services.
(4B) If regulations under subsection (1) contain provision in any of the areas listed in subsection (4C), the provision must be consistent with maintaining UK levels of statutory protection in that area.
(4C) The areas referred to in subsection (4B) are—
(a) the protection of human, animal or plant life or health;
(b) animal welfare;
(c) environmental protection;
(d) employment and labour;
(e) data protection;
(f) the protection of children and vulnerable adults online.”

6E: Page 3, line 40, at end insert—
“(2A) In this Part a reference to a draft of regulations being laid is a reference to a draft of the regulations, or a draft of the instrument containing the regulations, being laid before—
(a) each House of Parliament, in the case of regulations to which paragraph 4(1) or 5 of Schedule 2 applies;
(b) the Scottish Parliament, in the case of regulations to which paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 applies;
(c) Senedd Cymru, in the case of regulations to which paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 2 applies;
(d) the Northern Ireland Assembly, in the case of regulations to which paragraph 4(4) of Schedule 2 applies.”

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions C1, C2 and C3. I will start by addressing Amendments 6C, 6D and 6E, which are standards amendments that the Government committed to bring forward when we debated standards on 2 February.

Standards underpin our quality of life in so many areas and make the UK a safe and fair place to live. For months, I have been reassuring your Lordships—not always with success—that trade deals will not lead to the diminution of standards. But we have come good on our word. We have signed FTAs with 64 countries—which largely entered into effect from 1 January—none of which has undermined domestic standards in a single area. If this House will indulge me, in over 170 hours of debate on the Bill and its predecessor, not one noble Lord has been able to provide one tangible example of the Government’s continuity programme undermining standards.

However, we have listened to the concerns voiced by noble Lords. That is why we tabled a compromise amendment, which I am pleased to say was resoundingly approved in the other place by a majority of 96. I hope that all noble Lords will support Amendments 6C, 6D and 6E today. They provide a cast-iron statutory guarantee that the Clause 2 implementing power cannot be used to lower domestic standards in the listed areas, including animal welfare, the environment and employment rights.

This amendment may look familiar to your Lordships, as it is closely modelled on the compromise amendment tabled to the 2017-19 Trade Bill, which received significant cross-party support. That amendment, unusually, united us with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who found herself in “unknown territory” in supporting the Government; with deep respect, I hope that lightning will strike for the second time today. Additionally, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Grantchester, supported that amendment, with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, saying:

“I think this is a good day for the issues that people such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady McIntosh, have campaigned for. My noble friend Lady Henig has also been very persistent in making sure that we got something about that into the Bill. I am very happy to support that.”—[Official Report, 20/3/19; col. 1445.]


Wonderfully, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whom I deeply respect, said that the Government had acted with “graciousness and openness”.

These quotes may seem a little outdated, so I draw your Lordships’ attention to Committee on this Bill in October 2020, when the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—a man of great wisdom and expertise—tabled the same amendment ad verbum. To paraphrase him, he took joy—understandably—at tabling what was formerly a government amendment, and agreed that it would be a concrete improvement to the Bill. His version of this amendment received cross-party support in Committee, which I hope we can rely on today. To those not lending their support, I ask: why was this amendment good enough just four months ago but not good enough now?

In fact, we have good news before us, because the compromise amendment on the table today goes substantially further than the previous version of the standards amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, supported. This is entirely due to the quality of debate that we have had on this issue in this House—I say “this House” advisedly. First, we have brought the National Health Service into the scope of the amendment. The Government are, as noble Lords know, utterly committed to ensuring that the NHS’s role as a universal health service, free at the point of delivery, is safeguarded. In that spirit, this amendment stipulates that the provisions of an international trade agreement cannot be implemented using the Clause 2 power if they are inconsistent with maintaining UK publicly funded clinical healthcare services. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for their efforts in this area.

Further still, I am again pleased that we have brought the protection of children and vulnerable people online into the scope of this standards amendment, ensuring that the Clause 2 power cannot be used to reduce UK statutory protections for children and vulnerable people online, or relating to data protection. We have put online user safety on the same footing as workers’ rights and the environment. I pay due tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for this. She has been a tireless campaigner on this issue, and I thank her on behalf of the Government for working with us on this solution.

There will always be voices saying that we need to go even further, even faster, and do more to protect standards in trade agreements. I believe that we have in front of us a sensible compromise amendment which has time and again united this House in support.

I remind your Lordships that even continuity agreements are subject to joint committees and review clauses with partner countries. This compromise amendment applies only to Clause 2 but it does not affect just the present; it will also provide continuing and far-reaching guarantees on standards in our trading relationships with up to 70 countries. This approach will absolutely set the tone for our approach to future FTA negotiations.

I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—such an assiduous voice on these important matters—will outline that the Government’s distinction that the Bill is about continuity is now a false premise. However, with deep respect, that is incorrect. We are not amending any implementing power for future FTAs, because there is no such implementing power to be found in the Bill. As I said before, Clause 2 can be used only to implement continuity agreements; there is no power in this legislation to implement agreements with countries such as the USA.

We have made it perfectly clear that future FTAs will be legislated for as necessary in separate legislation, and that the Trade Bill is not the correct place to legislate for those agreements. Noble Lords will be able to scrutinise and indeed seek to amend future legislation in any way they see fit.

It has been a long journey on this standards amendment. However, I am delighted that we now have a sensible compromise on the table which safeguards our high standards, and I recommend that your Lordships join me in supporting it. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I pride myself on my boring consistency on some of these issues—perhaps the Minister’s office has trawled back through Hansard. I hope the desire that the UK will be seen as a trading nation of the highest standards has perhaps brought common ground across all parties. If, as the Minister said, that will set the tone for future trading policy and strategy, that is at least one area where there is common ground.

However, the devil is in the details of all these aspects when implementing legislation and, therefore, the implementing regulations for the continuity agreements. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, indicated, we discussed in Committee not just the interaction between the continuity agreements and brand new agreements for countries we had no FTA with, but what happens when we renew and refresh the existing continuity agreements. The continuity agreements, many of which are now out of date, especially the EPAs—some of which we will debate in this House—will need successor agreements. This amendment covers that interaction between the continuity agreements and the new successor agreements in which we will want to maintain those standards.

One agreement which may have to be looked at again is that with the Faroe Islands. I am glad the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised it. It seems a long time ago that we debated it, but its figures are seared in my memory. I fear she was rather generous about UK exports to the Faroe Islands—as I recall from 2017, it was £3 million in exports from the UK to the Faroe Islands and £229 million in imports from the Faroe Islands, of which £200 million were fish. The Faroe Islands told the All-Party Group on the Faroe Islands last week that, with most of that fish being landed into Northern Ireland and the extraordinary costs per shipping for the certification they need there, it is now looking at bypassing landing that into the UK—where it would then be processed for the EU market through the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere—directly to Denmark. We will therefore have to look at the interaction between that agreement and the European TCA, which we have had little scope to debate in this Chamber in plenary, because there could be a direct cost from that, maybe to our fishermen, for whom it is competition, and to our consumers for whom it is of great interest.

The Minister referred—for the benefit of Hansard, with a slightly irreverent eye— to my wisdom in Committee. My wisdom was, perhaps, in seeking today’s position. We are approving an amendment—I have written this down to try to get it right—which was rejected in Committee, and which the Government had removed from this Bill but had inserted in the last Bill after saying it was unnecessary at the outset. However, that is some progress. We now know what the Grimstone rule is, and that is very positive; if there is a Purvis political rule, it is “If at first you don’t succeed, try and try and try again.”

The Minister has been gracious to all who have engaged in this debate. One amendment where the wisdom of my arguments did not prevail upon the Government was to amend Clause 2 to ensure that it was about not just continuity agreements but all agreements. Had that been the case then the points that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised would have been covered.

I very warmly welcome the Minister saying that this amendment will now set the tone for the new amendments. The manner in which he has done this has also set the tone. On that basis, we will accept where we are at the moment; we have lifted the baseline, so when we engage in these debates going forward, we will start from a higher base. Ultimately, that is a positive move.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to make my closing speech on this motion with such a spirit of compromise and good will around the House. I thank noble Lords for that and will try to spread a bit of that good will towards food safety when I come to it in a moment.

This Trade Bill was always designed—it seems a long time ago now—to have continuity trade agreements at its heart; I apologise for constantly trying to bring noble Lords back to that. That is because its Clause 2 power, given that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, failed in his attempts to widen it, allows for the implementation of agreements only with a third country with which the EU had a signed agreement prior to exit day. It does not apply to future agreements with countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the USA. Interestingly, I am advised that successor agreements which derive directly from continuity agreements—for example, those with Canada and Mexico—will be within scope of Clause 2. If I need to elaborate on that, I will write a letter to the noble Lord.

I have said before, and say again, that the UK has a long track record of high standards across all areas. We should be proud of that, and the Government are keen to ensure it continues. However, I realise that, no matter how many times I stand here and repeat this, it will never be enough for some noble Lords. I appreciate that, but I say to them—this is the important point—that Parliament always has the final say. If it believes that the Government of the day have not kept their word and have negotiated an FTA that has reduced standards, it can refuse to ratify or, perhaps more importantly, refuse to agree with the legislation that will be necessary to implement future trade agreements not covered under our Clause 2 powers. It would be more than illogical—it would be foolish—for any Government to negotiate an agreement that they knew could not gain the approval of Parliament.

In direct answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who spoke with his normal sincerity and conviction, we do not yet know what form future legislation for future trade agreements will take. We know that it will be necessary in certain circumstances, but it will mean that I have the pleasure of standing across from the noble Lord at the Dispatch Box on future occasions.

I will touch on the very important issue of food safety, which was raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, in her Amendments 6G and 6H. I had a helpful conversation with the four musketeers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, last week, who asked me to provide greater clarity on this issue today. I can provide assurance that the Government’s proposed amendment also addresses food safety. It includes references to

“the protection of human, animal or plant life or health”,

among other issues. I am advised that that is the definition of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, as outlined in the WTO SPS agreement, and that it incontrovertibly includes matters relating to food safety. So, food safety is included in the amendment; it just has not spelt it out specifically.

Decisions on food safety standards are made outside of negotiations and are informed by the advice of our independent food standards agencies. As we know, all imports must abide by our food safety standards. The Government have also recently enhanced our commitments on scrutiny of food safety and standards in new FTAs, as an additional reassurance. Again, I congratulate Peers, as Section 42 of the Agriculture Act requires the Government to produce a report on whether provisions in new FTAs are consistent with statutory protections for human, animal and plant health, animal welfare and the environment. I am pleased to give the complete assurance that human health includes food safety, as well.

We will be consulting with the independent food standards agencies when producing our report, which will be published ahead of CRaG. These are independent agencies that have the ability, and normally the desire, to produce their own reports and make their views public. Even though this is a matter for them, I would be surprised if they did not want their views on such an important matter to be made known before the House considers such agreements.

The Government have listened to the concerns of noble Lords. We brought forward this amendment in the other place and it secured a majority. I say with caution that no other standards-related amendment proposed by this House has ever come close to doing this. I hope that noble Lords feel that we worked constructively with this House and kept our promises, and join me in voting for the government amendment and taking a decisive step in enacting this Bill into law. I hope that all agree that now is the time for us to move on with this important question, and not to delay the passage of this important legislation any further.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

First, I record my endless gratitude to the Minister for his consummate charm and patience, at every stage, and for taking the opportunity to speak to the gang of four, last week. He started by saying what a major development it was, and I echo him, that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is now on a statutory footing. You can imagine our disappointment that, having achieved that, reports to the House for a debate on food standards and safety in a future trade agreement will go through a body such as the Food Standards Agency, which we will not be able to hold directly to account.

Nevertheless, I welcome the assurances that my noble friend has given on the inclusion of food safety. That is something to celebrate. I join with others who have said that this will not go away and that we will revert to it, for future agreements. I am pleased to have made this point and I pay tribute to all, including the NFU, farmers, producers and consumers, who care so passionately about our food standards and levels of food safety. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw.

Trade Bill

Lord Grimstone of Boscobel Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 1 and 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 1A and 5A.

1A: Because Parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements is ensured by existing measures and UK standards cannot be changed without further implementing legislation (itself subject to Parliamentary scrutiny).

5A: Because Parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements is ensured by existing measures and UK standards cannot be changed without further implementing legislation (itself subject to Parliamentary scrutiny).

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motion A1. For those noble Lords present in the Chamber, I apologise for my discourtesy in not being at the Dispatch Box. I was travelling overseas on ministerial business last week, but while I was away my exemption was withdrawn so I am presently in quarantine. I apologise for my absence from the Chamber today.

The Bill has been returned to our House from the other place, and we are moving ever closer to getting this crucial piece of legislation on to the statute book. As my ministerial colleague the Minister of State for Trade Policy so eloquently put it during the last debate on the Bill in the other place, the Bill is this Parliament’s first opportunity to define the UK’s approach towards international trade as an independent trading nation, no longer a member of the EU and out of the transition period. The passage of the Bill will be a boon to the UK economy, giving certainty to business with regard to our continuity trade agreements, which we have now signed with no fewer than 63 partner countries, confirming the UK’s access to the £1.3 trillion global procurement markets, providing protection for businesses and consumers from unfair trading practices, and ensuring that we have the appropriate data to support traders at the borders.

The other place has resolved against non-government amendments to the Bill. It is my hope that this House concurs with the opinion of the other place and chooses not to further amend the Bill. I say with the greatest respect that we must be mindful of the role of this House within Parliament. We are not the democratically elected House and we do not express the will of the people in the same way as the other place does. Our primary role is to scrutinise and, where appropriate, ask the other place to reconsider an issue. The other place has done this, so we must think long and hard before disregarding its clear pronouncements.

I turn to the revised amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, on parliamentary scrutiny. It is of course only right and proper, now that we have left the EU, that Parliament should have the powers to effectively scrutinise the Government’s ambitious free trade agreement programme. However, the amendment has significant deficiencies that we believe are inappropriate for our Westminster style of government and would limit the Government’s ability to negotiate the best deals for the UK.

That is not to say that the Government have ignored the concerns of noble Lords and the other place. Quite the contrary: the Government have significantly enhanced their transparency and scrutiny arrangements because of the scrutiny that your Lordships’ House has given to the Bill. I point noble Lords to my Written Ministerial Statement of 7 December last year and the progress that we have made, for example, in putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing as evidence of that.

The enhanced arrangements that we have set out are as strong as and, in several areas, stronger than those of comparable Westminster-style advanced democracies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Several of the areas covered in the amendment duplicate things that the Government are already doing or are established precedent of the UK as a dualist state. This includes the statutory requirement to produce an Explanatory Memorandum when a treaty is laid in Parliament; it is through that Explanatory Memorandum that we outline the legislation needed to implement the agreement, as illustrated through the Explanatory Memorandum for the Japan agreement. Consequently, the Government already undertake what my noble friend is seeking in his amendment. As I said on Report, and I am happy to repeat it again, I remain open to discussing with noble Lords how we could improve the presentation of this information.

In addition, if the domestic implementing legislation were not passed before the FTA entered into force, the UK would be in breach of its treaty obligations. For that reason, implementing legislation is normally put in place before ratification of a treaty. I believe that there is no sense in changing that process. The Government have continued to stand by their commitments to accommodate debates on their trade agenda, subject to available time, and I am happy to confirm that that will not change.

Last week I met my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Purvis, to discuss the scrutiny amendment. At that meeting I said I would provide some additional information on the ministerial forum for trade, which I know has been of interest to your Lordships. The forum has been warmly welcomed by the devolved Administrations and has now met four times, most recently in December. As part of the Government’s commitment to improved transparency of intergovernmental relationships, I am pleased to say that there will be a new dedicated page on the GOV.UK website for the ministerial forum for trade. It will be used to publish communiques following future meetings, as well as other relevant documents such as the forum’s terms of reference.

To enable discussions on FTAs between the UK and devolved Ministers, we have shared negotiating objectives with the devolved Administrations for all our rest-of-world FTAs. We have also shared text concerning devolved matters during negotiations and stable text once we reach agreement in principle. I confirm that we intend to continue that approach in future.

In summing up on this amendment, it is already the case that if Parliament is not satisfied with an FTA that we have negotiated, the powers in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG—give Parliament the power to make its views clear by resolving against ratification. In the other place this process can of course be repeated indefinitely, effectively acting as a veto. Your Lordships will also know that we do not have the powers in this Bill to implement any FTA with the United States or any other country which we had no agreement with through our EU membership. The House will therefore have the opportunity to scrutinise any future legislation needed to implement these agreements.

I am sure that noble Lords will scrutinise these future agreements just as forensically as they did the continuity agreements which are the subject of the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, failure to pass any necessary implementing legislation for these future FTAs would prevent ratification of the agreement taking place.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

[Lord Lansley]

Moved by

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, first, we are sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, is not able to be present for the debate, but we know that he is following his Government’s rules by self-isolating.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for introducing the amendment, which, as he very kindly said, is the result of discussions and debates among Members of the House from all sides, but most closely with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who has just spoken, and me, in order to try to reach out to the Government with a corporate approach which is not party political but tries to reflect what this House has a responsibility for, which is to ensure that we have good governance.

We have moved considerably if we consider our starting position, which was set out in the Bill that left your Lordships’ House in March 2019, as has already been said. It had a detailed and lengthy description of the sorts of processes which could underpin the approval of international trade agreements. It was done largely in a vacuum because the Government decided not to play. They had published a Command Paper but they were not interested in detailed discussions at that stage. It was very much a product of a “What if?” mentality in the sense of putting to the other place a proposal which we confidently expected to come back and on which we hoped there would then be discussions, which have indeed transpired, albeit at a year’s distance from that time.

I want to put on record that we recognise that the Government, particularly under the Minister, have moved, but I point out that it has been mainly on the practicalities of scrutiny, not on the principles, and this amendment before your Lordships’ House today is about the principles that should underpin the approval of trade deals on behalf of the United Kingdom. The changes that have been made constitute primarily a huge increase in the information provided to the committee set up to look at trade deals, and the engagement there seems to be going well. We took the view that since that was a work in progress it probably needs more time to bed down. It certainly needs more time in discussion with Ministers and the Government about exactly what information is going to be provided and how it is going to be disseminated and discussed. It was probably not appropriate to seek primary legislation at this stage, but we do not rule out the idea that it is something that should be codified properly as we go forward.

Again for the record, it is important to say that we have agreed, perhaps reluctantly, to accept the Government’s red lines in relation to any constitutional changes that might be envisaged in relation to trade deals. We are not challenging the Government’s power to initiate and carry on their trade negotiations under the royal prerogative. Many would argue that that is outdated and should be changed and that Parliament should have a role in that, but we have not chosen to engage with that at this stage. We are not challenging the relationship between international trade agreements and the CRaG Act 2010. Again, the point has been made very well already that it does not seem fit for purpose, but in the meantime it is the mechanism we have. The changes proposed in our amendment are appropriate for where we want to go. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, just talked about that and I agree with what he said. As I have said already, we will leave the committees to work through the procedures and processes to cover all the elements of a trade deal because there are many different styles of trade deal, many of which have not yet surfaced in terms of scrutiny, and we need to learn lessons from that. Time will tell, but in the interests of making progress we have framed an amendment within the Government’s red lines.

We are not the elected Chamber but, as I have said already, we have a responsibility to look at the constitutional proprieties. I am very confident that this proposal before your Lordships’ House, while I recognise that it is a major shift from where we started in 2019 and earlier on in the progress of this Bill, is an appropriate way of carrying on the dialogue with the other place in the hope of persuading them that there are issues here.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, did an excellent job of summarising the amendment in lieu, but I want to put on record again that this is not just something that has been dreamed up by a few of us in the confines of your Lordships’ House. Everybody in your Lordships’ House knows that there is an outside group of people—many organisations, individuals and companies—who would like to see a change in the way in which the scrutiny of trade deals is carried out. They want open and transparent procedures and they want scrutiny to apply to all our trade policy—not just the rollover deals, but for the future as well. They include, as has already been mentioned, the former Secretary of State Liam Fox, and indeed—not that much reference has been made to it—there was a very powerful speech in Committee in your Lordships’ House by the former Trade Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead. They both urged the Government to seek a way forward by engaging with the proposals before your Lordships’ House today.

I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for their comments. They were very supportive, and I think they take exactly the tone that we want. This is a reasonable, measured and appropriate proposal which builds on the work that has been done in committees and gives Parliament its appropriate place. Parliament needs to have its say. What on earth are the Government afraid of? In closing, I just want to say that we do not regard this conversation as being closed. Should your Lordships’ House agree with this proposal today, we will be very happy to engage in further discussions with the Government, because we are not far apart on this.

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

My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. I have listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Lansley displaying his normal forensic skills and to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and his references to Dr Liam Fox. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who I think courteously acknowledged the progress we have made in scrutiny, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. At least I made the noble Baroness laugh out loud, even if she does not think much of our negotiating skills. I have to say I think that was rather unfair to the officials who have been conducting the negotiations. Last, but certainly not least, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, displayed his normal wisdom.

As I mentioned, the Government have significantly strengthened the scrutiny and transparency arrangements in place. I fully acknowledge the pressure from noble Lords which led us to do that. I am sure that, over time as we consider more free trade agreements, there will be a continued strengthening of scrutiny and transparency. I am very pleased that the Government have undertaken to publish objectives and scoping assessments at the outset of negotiations for new free trade agreements with Japan, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and in due course—if the admissions process triggered by my right honourable friend the Trade Secretary is successful—the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Additionally, the Government will continue to keep Parliament and the public informed of progress on these negotiations through the publication of “round reports” as we call them, alongside regular briefings for parliamentarians so that they are kept informed and can ask questions of Ministers. I confirm that the Government will continue to work with the International Trade Committee and the International Agreements Committee to ensure that they have treaty text and other related documents or reports, on a confidential basis, a reasonable time prior to them being laid or deposited in Parliament under the CRaG procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because it is unnecessary in light of existing international obligations.

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

My Lords, I beg to move Motion B. With the leave of the House, I will speak also to Motions C, C1, C2 and C3.

First, I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. While this amendment does not focus solely on China, it is clear that a primary concern of noble Lords and our colleagues in the other place are the deplorable actions of the Chinese Government towards the Uighur population in Xinjiang province. With that mind, I recall the Foreign Secretary’s Statement of a few weeks ago, which set out a number of measures the Government are taking in this area, including the introduction of financial penalties for organisations that fail to comply with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, a review of export controls as they apply to Xinjiang, and strengthened overseas business risk guidance for businesses. These actions show clearly how seriously the Government take human rights violations and abuses across the world, including in China. The UK has long been committed to the promotion of our values across the world. Trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seeks to impose a duty on the Government to bring a Motion for debate before both Houses of Parliament in the event that the High Court makes a preliminary determination that a trading partner, existing or potential, of the UK has committed genocide.

It has been the Government’s long-standing policy that any determination of genocide should be made only by a competent court, rather than a Government or a non-judicial body. It has been argued that international courts such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice have not been effective and that it should be up to UK courts to make determinations on state genocide.

UK courts already have a role where a person is charged with the crime of genocide. Under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, domestic criminal courts in the UK are competent to find individuals guilty of genocide where the case is proved to the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. UK courts can determine whether a genocide has taken place when a person is charged with the crime of genocide, wherever the alleged genocide took place. Both UK nationals and UK residents can be prosecuted, including those who became resident in the UK after the alleged offence took place.

Genocide, the greatest of all international crimes, is notoriously hard to prove. It requires not only the commission of a constitutive act—normally killing, but also rape, forced sterilisation and a number of other heinous measures—but

“intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.

To prove that any Government have “genocidal intent” under the very specific terms of the genocide convention can be extremely difficult to achieve in practice due to the inherent difficulty of proving genocidal intent and the potential difficulty of obtaining reliable information from overseas regions.

Any case would also entail significant practical and procedural difficulties for the UK courts charged with making a preliminary determination. On the procedural side, the proceedings will be formal court procedures with all the associated disadvantages; for example, relevant evidence might not be admissible under the stringent applicable rules.

Moreover, although the proceedings contemplated under the amendment seem to be ex parte, other countries could make an application saying that the High Court should not hear the claim on the ground that this would contravene sovereign immunity principles. If the High Court were then still to hear the claim, they could say that the process was illegitimate, as the court had no jurisdiction to judge their behaviour.

Given the procedural and evidentiary difficulties, as well as the extremely restrictive nature of the international law regarding genocide, I must say that there is a substantial likelihood that any judge could find him or herself unable to make a preliminary determination on the facts before the court. Such a result would be a substantial propaganda boon for any foreign Government accused, who could portray the outcome as vindication for their policies and undermine broader diplomatic efforts to hold them to account. Dwell on that fact for a moment, my Lords.

In a more general sense, the amendment seeks to force the Government to stop and debate their trading arrangements in the event that UK courts make a finding of genocide relevant to a partner country where the UK either has a trade agreement or is negotiating one. But it would frankly be absurd for any Government to wait for the human rights situation in a country to reach the level of genocide—the most egregious international crime—before halting free trade agreement negotiations. Any responsible Government, and certainly this one, would have acted well before then.

In the event of a finding by a competent court that an existing trading partner had committed genocide, we would of course consider the available range of policy options across government. Such responses would, of course, not be restricted to trade. The Government do not just have a responsibility in these matters, they have a duty to take tough decisions and to chart a course of action when faced with egregious crimes that may be perpetrated in the international community.

On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office publishes annually its Human Rights and Democracy report, which touches on relevant issues, including on matters concerning human rights in the context of business and the private sector. In the light of this existing government activity, I respectfully suggest that a legislative requirement to produce a report is not required.

The Government are committed to working with Parliament on the most heinous crime of genocide and to exploring options with Parliament in this regard as it relates to trade. Our minds are certainly not, as they should not be, closed on that matter, but we must proceed without amending the delicate balance in the constitution and the role of the courts, and, on this most serious of issues, genocide, minimise the risk of undermining the very aims of those seeking justice.

For all the reasons I have set out, I strongly encourage noble Lords to set aside this unnecessary amendment—powerful although it is—and to continue to work with the Government on this most crucial issue.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, despite the problems in relation to attendance and ability to speak that we have heard about, this has been a very good debate, full of passion and erudition. We do not have nearly enough Charlie Chaplin in our House, and so I was glad that my noble friend Lord Adonis was able to bring him in, even at this late stage.

Both opening speeches on the two amendments, from my noble friend Lord Collins and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, respectively, were moving, persuasive and, of their type, almost unanswerable. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out, the Government are in a hole here. The blizzard of meetings, calls and letters across three departments, and the tone of the arguments deployed by Ministers, are all indicative of a panicked response, stemming perhaps from a failure to anticipate the problem and compounded by a worry, as my noble friend Lord Collins saw it, about no longer being able to have their cake—trade—and eat it, with no worries about the ethical elements. If a concession is to be brought forward which is “Let’s set up a committee”, one wonders what they thought the original question was—it will not wash.

It is clear that these amendments need to be considered as complementary, as my noble friend Lord Collins and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, agreed. Together, they pose the question of when and in what way we bring in an ethical dimension to our trade policy. The Minister said at the start of the discussion that trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights, but it does—unless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, warned us, good people follow Burke with action, not just nice words. As the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said, words are completely inadequate when you are facing a case of genocide.

We, the Official Opposition, will support both amendments when they are called. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, respects parliamentary authority now and it has been changed in a way which makes it more effective and more appropriate for its purpose. It sets in place a process to remedy the current defects in the way the international order deals with the egregious crime of genocide. The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Collins rightly places a responsibility on Ministers to make a determination about crimes against humanity and to keep Parliament fully informed about breaches of compliance in relation to the UK’s human rights and international obligations. This seems to be a logical, balanced and appropriate approach to the issues that are before us and we will support the amendments.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.

3A: Because it is not an effective means of dealing with cases of state genocide.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.

4A: Because Parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements is ensured by existing measures, and regulations under Clause 2 are subject to the affirmative procedure in any event.

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motions E, E1, F, F1, H, H1, J and J1. The amendments in this diverse group all have something in common: they all relate to standards and protections, whether protecting the UK’s high agricultural standards, children and vulnerable people online, or the NHS and medical data.

Lords Amendment 6 builds upon the government amendment brought forward to the previous Trade Bill, after agreement across the House. Consequently, the Government have some sympathy with how this amendment relates to continuity agreements. I am happy to commit to working with noble Lords on the drafting, on the understanding that the Government will table an amendment, when the legislation returns to the other place, on the agreements in scope of Clause 2.

Although this legislation deals with continuity agreements, in which noble Lords will clearly see the Government’s commitment to maintaining standards, we have also been clear that the UK’s strength—our unique selling proposition, as it were—has always been our high standards. I am pleased to confirm from this virtual Dispatch Box that it is both ethically right and economically in our interest to maintain these high standards, and we have made this clear in our negotiations on FTAs with new partners.

In addition, when we sign future free trade agreements with countries such as Australia and the US, where changes are required to domestic law we will also bring forward the necessary legislation to implement those agreements. Parliamentarians will have the ability to amend that legislation or vote down the Bill if Parliament decides that the agreement is insufficient and does not protect standards. I have no doubt that the strong arguments made in relation to standards on our continuity agreements will be raised with equal passion on future deals.

Lords Amendment 4 seeks to introduce a range of restrictions on the regulations that can be made under Clause 2 relating to the delivery of free and universal health services, the protection of medical data and scrutiny of algorithms, and a prohibition on the use of investor-state dispute settlement, rachet clauses and negative listing provisions. This Government, like each and every Government since the establishment of the NHS, are completely committed to ensuring that it remains universal and free at the point of service. As I have said before on a number of occasions, the NHS, the services it provides and the price it pays for medicines will not be on the table when we are negotiating free trade agreements.

It is a truism that actions speak louder than words so, if you are not convinced by my words today, please feel free to take a look at the agreements we have already signed. Not one has undermined the principles or the delivery of a free and universal NHS; not one has affected our ability to protect the health service; and the powers in this legislation provide continuity with existing EU trade agreements. The NHS is not on the table. The price the NHS pays for drugs is not on the table. The services the NHS provides are not on the table as trade-offs in return for anything else. The NHS is not, and never will be, for sale. However, I reaffirm my commitment today to work with noble Lords to include the NHS—including data protection provisions—within the standards amendment that the Government will now bring forward.

Lords Amendment 7 seeks to prevent the Government signing international trade agreements that are not explicitly compliant with international and domestic obligations relating to the protection of children and vulnerable people online. The Government are committed not only to maintaining but to strengthening protections from online harm for the most vulnerable members of our society. We have a proud record in this area. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—DCMS—has published an initial government response to the Online Harms White Paper that sets out new expectations for tech companies to keep their users safe online. The full government response will be released alongside interim voluntary codes on tackling criminal activity. I can confirm that this will be followed by the introduction of new primary legislation this year, substantially upgrading protections from harmful or inappropriate content for children and young people, and showing that the UK will continue to be a world leader in this cause.

Noble Lords have made it clear that their concerns are primarily regarding a potential US FTA. As we have made clear throughout, the Trade Bill cannot be used to implement an FTA with the US. New legislation will be required to implement any such deal. Parliament, of course, will be able to debate, scrutinise and amend that legislation in the usual way. If Parliament does not pass any necessary implementing legislation, the agreement will not be ratified. Additionally, if there are any provisions in these new free trade agreements that Parliament does not agree with, it maintains the ability to resolve against them through the CRaG process.

I have met with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, a number of times and she has shown passion and courtesy in those meetings. I support her cause and I am happy to work with her to include online protection for children and vulnerable people within the scope of the standards amendment that I have just discussed.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 9 and 10 concerning the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which the Government support. These amendments put the commission on a statutory footing to help inform the report required by Section 42 of the Agriculture Act. The other place supported the proposals by a majority of 100. The Trade and Agriculture Commission will advise the Secretary of State for International Trade on certain matters set out in Section 42 of the Agriculture Act concerning the consistency of certain free trade agreement measures with UK statutory protections concerning animal and plant life and health, animal welfare and the environment.

The other place re-amended the provisions in the Trade Bill relating to the Trade and Agriculture Commission to remove human health from its remit. As my ministerial colleague, the Minister of State said during the debate in the other place, putting human health under the remit of the TAC would duplicate the work of other appropriate bodies, and that would undermine both the TAC and those relevant bodies.

I met with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, last week and promised to outline to him the role of the Food Standards Agency in this important area. The Government recognise the important role of the food standards agencies in providing independent and science-based evidence on key areas of human health, such as food safety standards. As independent agencies, the FSA and FSS are free to comment publicly on future FTAs with regard to the areas of their statutory remit, and Ministers will of course consider any such views. Furthermore, in the Government’s preparation of the report under Section 42 of the Agriculture Act, we are considering how best to draw on relevant expertise of different departments and specific relevant bodies such as the food standards agencies.

The clear intention of the Government is to recognise the importance of our independent food standards agencies and the advice that they provide. This Government seek not to duplicate the advice of those agencies or undermine their expertise. That is why they have set out that human health should be out of scope for the TAC’s advice but they in no way minimise the importance of advice on human health.

I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and that the House is clear on the Government’s commitment to maintaining existing standards. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, we have listened to another very interesting debate, with many fine comments made by noble Lords. I have learned during the many hours of debates on this Trade Bill that no subject is ever closed or finished with, and that there is always more to say that is well intentioned on everything that is debated. For example, on ISDS, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is deeply concerned about the matters that he brought forward, but even at my age I do have a clear memory of a debate that we had earlier on that matter. I remember it well, because I think it was the only amendment to the Trade Bill that the Government managed to win in our many hours of debate.

On the fears expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Thornton, about the NHS, I must repeat categorically, yet again, that the NHS is not and never will be for sale and that no free trade agreement will affect that. I am happy to repeat that phrase as many times as your Lordships want, but I am trying to make it as straightforward as I can.

The UK has a long track record of high standards across all areas. I say categorically that this Government are not going to see the UK turn into a so-called Singapore-on-Thames. This is not something that we could ever countenance. That is for a very good reason. The people of this country do not want to see the UK’s high standards diminished, and we hear them say that loud and clear. We have signed agreements with 63 countries worth more than £200 billion, and not one of them undermines in any way British standards in any area, whether it be agriculture, labour, climate, online harms, or health. In more than three and a half years spent on this legislation and its predecessor, taking in nearly 150 hours of debate, no noble Lord has been able to find one standard that has been undermined by our continuity programme.

To make our commitment in this area completely clear, the Government propose to bring forward an amendment in the other place modelled closely on the amendment introduced the last time the Trade Bill was debated. I shall go through the list of what it provides for one by one, so that I am being crystal clear. There will be no regression of standards in regulations made under this Bill—I remind noble Lords that the regulations made under the Bill relate only to continuity agreements—which in any way affect the maintenance of UK publicly funded clinical healthcare services; the protection of human, animal or plant life or health; animal welfare; environmental protection; employment and labour; data protection, which of course includes health data; and the online protection of children and vulnerable people. That will be the basis of the amendment that we will bring forward in the other place. Of course, I would be delighted to discuss it with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and other Peers as we move towards that point. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will be satisfied with that all-embracing commitment. I repeat to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell—yet again—that the intention of the Government is to recognise the importance of our independent food standards agencies and the advice they provide.

The only reason we thought it best that the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission did not itself cover human health is that we have excellent agencies already doing that. We felt that it would be wrong—worse than wrong, nonsensical—to seek to duplicate the advice of these agencies or undermine their expertise. That is why we set out that human health should be out of scope for the TAC advice. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I have heard no suggestion that in any way it does not feel resourced to do this, but I will inquire about that and write to her if there is any such suggestion.

We will continue to protect the UK’s high standards in agri-food, human and animal health, workers’ rights, the environment and the climate, and we will continue to protect the NHS and the most vulnerable in our society, as we have done in every single negotiation that we have concluded. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we will not allow anything to be put into future FTAs that would harm our children or vulnerable people. Why would we want to do that? Why would we be so foolish in negotiations as to allow something to be included that would harm our children or our vulnerable people?

Yet again, we have had an excellent debate. I hope that my words have at least reassured noble Lords, although I suspect that, until they see the colour and fine print of the amendment that we intend to bring forward showing non-regression in these areas, they will not fully believe what I have said—not until they see it in black and white. As I have said, the continuity agreements that this Bill implements do not undermine any domestic standard or our ability to provide an NHS free at the point of use. I reaffirm yet again the Government’s commitment to bring forward an amendment in the other place to address these concerns. I sincerely hope that that will put your Lordships’ minds at rest and enable it to be taken for granted that we will do what I have said we will do.

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

I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would like to ask a question for elucidation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.

7A: Because it is not an effective means of ensuring the protection of children online.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.

8A: Because unfettered access to the UK market is addressed by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.

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

My Lords, Lords Amendment 8 aims to ensure that there is no discrimination within the UK internal market against Northern Ireland goods and services or against services provided to customers in Northern Ireland as a result of UK trade agreements.

When this amendment was previously considered in this Chamber, many noble Lords expressed concerns around the flow of goods into Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to addressing any challenges that may arise with the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol. There have been no significant queues at Northern Ireland’s ports, and supermarkets are now generally reporting healthy delivery of supplies into Northern Ireland. The Government have put in place three end-to-end systems—the GVMS, the CDS and the trader support service—to deliver the Northern Ireland protocol and successfully implement a functioning model that facilitates the flow of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Government are committed to ensuring unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving to the rest of the UK market. To be clear, when we say “unfettered access”, we mean that there will be no declarations, tariffs, new regulatory checks or customs checks, or additional approvals for Northern Ireland businesses to place goods on the GB market. The Government’s commitment to this goal is evidenced by the fact that we secured the removal of any requirement for export declarations as goods move from Northern Ireland to Great Britain in discussions at the withdrawal agreement joint committee.

The Northern Ireland protocol applies only to a small subset of EU rules on goods and electricity, related to the good functioning of the Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland border. There will be the same freedom to regulate for the services industries of the future in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom, and regulations will be consistent across the UK internal market.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, has withdrawn and there are no unlisted speakers, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right to have raised in this brief debate the recent events which, as reported in the press, certainly seem to cast a completely new light on how arrangements are to operate within Northern Ireland, and in relation to goods travelling between GB and Northern Ireland. He also referred to the recent issue—a diplomatic issue, perhaps—to do with the vaccine and the relationship that had with the Northern Ireland protocol. I think, having been said, these points are made, and if the Minister wishes to respond to them that would be interesting, but I think they do not really bear on the future debate.

I will use this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Hain and his all-party group, which supported amendments both here and in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—now Act—which were very useful in bringing to the attention of both Houses of Parliament, and to the wider world, the way in which some of the regulations and the statutory provisions being discussed and debated in your Lordships’ House would bear on the real lives of people who live in Northern Ireland, and the impact it would have on how they operate, how they live, and the wider context of the legislative framework within which they operate, including the Good Friday agreement.

I think the amendments have served their purpose in making sure that we are aware of these issues and keeping them in front of Parliament, as I have said. I think there is no more need for them, which is why we are not contesting the decision of the Commons on this matter.

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

My Lords, first, I completely associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the critical importance of maintaining the security of staff at the border in Northern Ireland, and his comments about vaccination. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, often does, he has managed to catch me out on a point of detail about his EORI numbers, but I will commit to look into the point he made and write to him about that as soon as possible.

In conclusion, the Government are fully committed to ensuring that there are no barriers or discrimination within the UK internal market, as this amendment seeks to prevent. We will continue to abide by the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has espoused across these many debates.

Motion G agreed.

Trade Bill

Lord Grimstone of Boscobel Excerpts

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

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)]

I call the Minister to make a statement on legislative consent.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, as the Government have made clear throughout all stages of the Trade Bill, the UK Government are committed to working closely with the devolved Administrations to deliver an independent trade policy that works for the whole of the UK. I am pleased to say that the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have both granted legislative consent, and I am grateful to colleagues in the Welsh and Scottish Governments, who have worked tirelessly to consider this Bill and schedule the necessary votes. However, the Northern Ireland Executive have not brought forward a legislative consent memorandum, and the Assembly has therefore not voted on legislative consent. I reassure noble Lords that the Government will continue to engage with the Northern Ireland Executive.

Clause 8: Standards affected by international trade agreements

Amendment 1

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief in my remarks on Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I will restrict my remarks to this amendment rather than to the underlying amendment that it would amend.

We disagree with the fundamentals of the clause voted into the Bill on Report. However, we believe that there is no sense in dividing your Lordships’ House over this amendment, which aims to clarify ambiguities in the drafting in a previous amendment. I noted carefully the comments made by my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

As far as the code of practice and its timing are concerned, until the Bill has completed its passage and been subjected to ping-pong, we will not know exactly what will be in it, so we have not yet turned our attention to the detail and substance of the code.

I agree completely with the comments of my noble friend Lady McIntosh on the importance of food standards; we have been pleased to reiterate that constantly during the passage of the Bill. I join her in applauding the great work our farmers do day in, day out.

We will not oppose this minor and technical change to the clause, and we will return to debate the detail of this provision at the appropriate time.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall start with a quick apology. My train down this morning was part of the new lockdown schedules and did not exist, so I took the next one; I thought that I would still be all right but, as we discovered, I was two or three minutes late. I apologise for that. I thank my noble friend Lord Collins for standing in for me and moving the amendment formally, which is all I would have done in any case as this amendment was discussed earlier during the passage of the Bill. I was notified that it was slightly unclear—hence the correction before the House today.

I am grateful for the further comments I received from noble Lords in looking at the amendment again, but the substantive point is that we are happy to have this part of the Bill looked at again by the Commons and to have time to discuss it, because the points are well expressed and the thrust of the amendment is very cogent. The Commons will look at it among the totality of the clauses in the Bill. I am sure that this will give an opportunity for further clarity, assimilation and—how can I put this?—alignment between the various clauses to make better sense of it.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, yes, it is important that statutory instruments come with impact assessments. As to whether an impact assessment is required for every trade Bill—or, indeed, every statutory instrument needed for every trade Bill—I am sure that the Minister, when he is going through trade Bills and the CRaG procedures as determined already, and by amendments to this Bill, will clarify that and make it clear. I am sure that he will also make it clear that, of course, once this Bill becomes legislation, the Government will do all they can to facilitate a full debate in both Houses.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

2: Schedule 3, page 25, line 23, after “(5)(b)” insert “(as amended by the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Scotland Act 1998, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, as stated on Report, the Government bring forward these amendments in the light of the passage of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. These amendments will revise the paragraph numbering in Schedule 3 to accord with the amendments made to the respective devolution Acts by the aforementioned Act. Schedule 3 relates to exceptions to restrictions in the devolution settlements. Although these amendments amend Schedule 3, I assure noble Lords that they are minor and technical and will not make any substantive policy changes to the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, my interests are as listed on the register. I will be brief; I fully endorse all the amendments proposed in this group.

I have a few comments on the proposed trade and agriculture commission but, first, on behalf of my friends on the Cross Benches, I thank the Minister for being so helpful and considerate throughout the passage of this Bill. His patience and willingness to engage have been very much appreciated, particularly when the sense of time pressure has been apparent. Obviously, the constraints of the pandemic have imposed on the parliamentary process, and coupled with the need to speedily expedite so many Bills to meet the timetable determined by leaving the European Union, this has placed enormous pressure on the system—not only on Ministers but on the myriad of staff teams that have of necessity been required to support this demanding timetable. I thank all for their valuable support, which has been incredibly important and is very much appreciated.

I thank the Government again for recognising the need for the trade and agriculture commission, and for deciding to give it statutory footing through the Bill. This is a hugely important step forward and is valued by all key stakeholders. I have a very straightforward request for clarity from the Minister, and I apologise for raising this again. It is on the relationship between the TAC and the food standards agencies. I am deliberately using the plural because of the separate functions that exist within the United Kingdom, and these amendments today are addressing issues relating to the United Kingdom. Removing human health from the remit of the TAC—because, one assumes, the food standards agencies will undertake that responsibility—raises the question of how this will work in practice when a new trade deal is being scrutinised by all these bodies, and how this will be reported to Parliament. Will there be a number of separate reports, will the individual bodies and agencies collaborate and produce a joint report, or will the Secretary of State filter the various reports before submitting to Parliament?

I know that the Minister tried to respond to these issues on Report, so I apologise that I am probably stretching his patience to the limit, but I am still rather confused and would appreciate it if he could please explain it again so that I have clarity. I end by thanking all staff once again for their immensely valuable help with this most important Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate, and I am very grateful for their kind words about those who have worked so hard on this Bill. I will come back to this during my Third Reading speech.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, was characteristically eloquent, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was characteristically practical. I have carefully noted their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, asked about the reports that would be made in relation to matters in this Bill under the Agriculture Act. To clarify, there are effectively two reports. The statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission must make a report, which will be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State too must lay a report according to the provisions of the Act. His or her report will of course be informed by the report of the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission, but will also draw on expertise from other sources; for example, there will be a requirement to report on the impact of matters covered by the report on human health.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe raised a few specific points which I will briefly reassure her on. Like her, speaking from the viewpoint of practical businesspeople, I abhor red tape and can confirm that we have no intention of adding to the mountain of it that already exists. I can give my noble friend a complete reassurance that the question on the tax form will absolutely be a simple and voluntary tick box, asking “Do you export goods or services?” Companies will not be required to provide a breakdown of customs headings and literally no other information will be sought other than that tick. I can also confirm that the Government have done an impact assessment on the entire Bill. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it was agreed that this additional question on the corporation tax form—or, where appropriate, the self-assessment form—was regarded as a minimum burden on business. If there was a word that meant “smaller than minimum”, it could have been used. I also reassure my noble friend that the Henry VIII power will be used only to place the necessary question into the tax form.

Finally, I can provide a complete assurance that commercially sensitive record-level data collected by HMRC on exporters and others would be exempt from a freedom of information request. Responses to such requests must not disclose information that is in breach of other law. In this case, sharing disclosive information about businesses or people collected by HMRC would be in contravention of the Commissioners of Revenue and Customs Act 2005 and the Data Protection Act 2018, and of course there are penalties for so doing. I hope that my words provide complete reassurance to my noble friend.

This has been a short but useful debate, and I would be grateful for the support of the House in making these minor and technical amendments.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

3: Schedule 3, page 25, line 23, leave out “(ii)” and insert “(iii)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of four Government drafting amendments to correct the place at which a provision is inserted into the Scotland Act 1998, in consequence of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 inserting an equivalent provision.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, as we come to the end of the legislative process for the Bill in this House, I will say a few words to express my sincere gratitude to those who have made its progress possible, starting with my noble friend Lord Younger, whose support throughout this process has been invaluable, especially to a rookie Minister such as myself. I am hugely in his debt. He has shown me the ropes, he has been a deep well of knowledge on parliamentary process and he has stepped up time and again during the debates.

I also thank my predecessor in this role, my noble friend Lady Fairhead, who laid the groundwork in so many ways and whose prior work undoubtedly made the passage of this Bill so much smoother. Any credit for this Bill should surely start with her. I pay particular respect to the noble Lords who have taken their time to meet with me, virtually, to listen to me and to advocate for their issues, and particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I also thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Noakes and Lord Lansley.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Berkeley, for their expertise and relentless advocacy of important issues that often get subsumed in the wider debate. There is one notable addition to the names I have just mentioned. My predecessor, my noble friend Lady Fairhead, singled out the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his contributions in the 2017-19 Bill, and I do the same. Without his forthright counsel, his expertise and his patience, the Bill would not be where it is today.

But this has been very much a team performance. Behind the scenes, civil servants have put in an unbelievable job of work. My thanks go to them, to my private office—in particular, my private secretary Donald Selmani—and to those in the Department for International Trade and across Government who have helped get the Bill to this point. With permission, I will specifically mention the Bill team, whose support has been invaluable not only to myself but to many Members of our House, beginning with the previous Bill manager, Gail Davis, who has expertly guided this Bill and who will now enjoy a well-earned retirement after a distinguished career in the Civil Service. I also pay tribute to the other members of the Bill team, past and present. James Copeland, the current Bill manager, has been on this legislation since day one. I suspect that he is almost as hopeful as noble Lords of getting it on the statute book. I should also mention members of his team: Alistair Ford, Oscar Burbidge, Ross Holton and Thomas Bingham. Finally, I thank the parliamentary staff, the doorkeepers and the clerks, for their patience and professionalism, and I know that I speak for the whole House when I thank all those who have helped make the hybrid process a success during the time of this dreadful pandemic.

This has been my first experience of taking a major and substantive Bill through the House and I do believe that the legislation, after the hard work that Peers have put into it, will be a credit to all Members of this House and the other place and will have a significant positive impact on the citizens and businesses of this great country.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very graceful and elegant introduction of this brief part of the Bill. Votes of thanks are very difficult to do, whether in the Chamber, as they were here, remotely or as part of a more social gathering. It is very difficult to get them right, but I think everyone would agree that this was very nicely done.

The Minister is a relative newcomer to our work, although he has got into the groove very quickly and been able to manage it very successfully. Of course, he has a secret: he started his career in the Civil Service. Therefore, it is to be expected that members of the Bill team have welcomed him back, as it were, and have supported him in a way that has allowed him to do his job with a great level of skill.

I often think that Bills passing through your Lordships’ House acquire a character of their own. This Bill might be described in a number of ways. “Groundhog Day” would be most people’s choice, but that would involve a daily repetition whereas this Bill has been with us only twice. I say “only”, but each time it has repeated much of the stuff that we have dealt with before. The first time it went through with the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, and it was very different because of changed circumstances.

However, that comparison perhaps does not work quite so well, so I suggest that we are talking about a version of “Hamlet”. Parts of this Trade Bill are perhaps Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: they, too, are involved in events often happening just outside their understanding and make all-too-infrequent appearances before escorting Hamlet to England and an untimely offstage death—such a waste of such wonderful characters. I will leave others to speculate who played the other parts. I certainly have in mind characters who might be accused of playing Polonius and others who might have played the Player King.

Of course, having the Bill twice, as we have had, may bring other benefits. One suspects that there are probably several PhDs and books to be written about how different approaches were taken over the two cycles of the Bill, the changes in Ministers, the impact of the changes in the political environment and even the change from real to virtual debate, which was mentioned by the Minister, which will have had an impact. I think it might be interesting see them in a few years’ time.

However, we need to focus on where we go next with the Bill. The Government have achieved their target of getting it through all its stages in your Lordships’ House, but it is not finished. In 2019, the then Minister kindly acknowledged that she felt the Bill had been “improved” by its passage through your Lordships’ House. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, also implied that, although he did not quite say so in the same words, but I thank him for his thanks to us and the others who have contributed to the Bill.

I am sure that I speak for all those involved in the Bill, indeed, for the whole House, when I say that this is, amazingly, the first Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, has done, and he has done so with extraordinary skill. The idea that only a few months ago he made his maiden speech at Second Reading of the Bill means that we have to look in a new light at his ability to catch up and work forward. He has been very good at organising meetings and providing the information we wanted. Indeed, at one point I had to remonstrate with him about his propensity to email me and colleagues at all hours of the day and night and at weekends. Enough is enough, I think—although he did not seem to take the message.

The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, whom the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, mentioned in his speech, supported him very well and showed his usual charm and courtesy at the Dispatch Box. The Bill team, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, was exemplary. We have had a very good service from them and I thank them very much for that. He also mentioned the debt of gratitude we owe to the broadcasting hub and to the staff of the House for making it possible to deliver the Bill at all. My struggles today have been a good example of that. I have been able to communicate at very short notice in a way that I did not think was possible when the internet went down a couple of hours ago.

Outside the House, we have been assisted by the Greener UK alliance and the Trade Justice Movement, in particular. Over the period that we have been involved in the Bill, it has been interesting to see how external groups and civic society have become more interested in trade policy. This is a good thing, given that it is crucial to us as a nation going forward. That is something we want to build on and have endure.

I have been supported in this phase of the Bill by my noble friends Lord Grantchester, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Lennie, our Whip, who have coped very well with me in my “Hamlet” mode. Dan Harris, our legislative assistant, has also been absolutely brilliant and has supported the whole enterprise, even sacrificing his birthday celebrations on one occasion to make sure that papers were made ready and got out. His negotiations with the Public Bill Office have been a joy because I have not had to do them.

We have made a number of changes to the Bill which we hope will be considered sympathetically by the other place tomorrow. I say again to the Minister that we are not far apart on many of these issues, and it would be good to meet him in the interim to see whether there is further common ground to be hammered out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I pay fulsome tribute to my noble friends Lord Grimstone of Boscobel and Lord Younger of Leckie for their stewardship of the Bill, bringing us to where we are today. I join my noble friends in also paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Fairhead for originating the original Bill, to which I also contributed.

My noble friend has alluded to all those who contributed, and I join him in thanking all the officials who have helped us—notably, his private secretary and the Bill team. I also thank the doorkeepers, the attendants and those in the Printed Paper Office and the Public Bill Office, who have worked exceptionally hard on the Bill. I thank, too, the catering staff, who have ensured that, while we have been meeting in this House, we have been well fed and watered.

My noble friend alluded to the fact that the Bill has changed during its passage in this House before it proceeds to the ping-pong stage. I echo the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, that the food standards agencies of the four nations will be asked to advise on human health. There is a concern over how they will report on and feed the human health aspects into the other two reports to which my noble friend referred.

I also extend warm thanks to the Law Society of Scotland, which briefed me at various stages of the Bill to ensure that Scottish concerns—particularly those of the legal profession in Scotland—were heeded.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to “Hamlet”. Obviously that was set in Denmark, with the Prince of Denmark being the main player. I end by thanking my noble friend Lord Grimstone, who has emerged as the swan, with the rest of us being the ugly ducklings. He has had an aura of calm at every stage of the Bill, and I am sure that he has been serenely paddling underneath. I thank him and congratulate him and other noble friends on getting the Bill to this stage today. I look forward to the ping-pong stage to see how the unfinished business, particularly relating to the CRaG procedures and the other domestic legislation and the regulations they put in place, plays out.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of myself and everybody else referred to, I thank noble Lords for their most generous comments. I constantly stand in awe of the expertise in our House and the courtesies with which views are expressed. With a sense of relief, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability

Lord Grimstone of Boscobel Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support the initiative for an Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, sustainable trade is a priority for the UK as an independent trading nation. We have already liberated more than 100 environmental goods in the UK global tariff and co-sponsored the new plurilateral structured discussions on trade and environmental sustainability in the WTO. We are considering further policy options, including the three policy areas which comprise the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability: environmental goods and services liberalisation, eco labelling, and fossil fuel subsidies.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. I understand that he will not be able to comment on the outcome, but can he assure me that the UK will seek to have those three measures—ending barriers to trade in environmental goods and services, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and a global eco-labelling scheme—in all future trade deals? Will the UK use its seat on the WTO to get them built into the WTO rules?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to confirm to the noble Baroness that that is the case. We consider these subjects to be very important and we always seek to cover them in our negotiations on future free trade agreements.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend welcomed this agreement in the Trade Bill debate last week. Can he expand on his welcome? Can it be taken as a statement of intent to join, and what steps is the department taking to help businesses trade in a way that lowers their emissions and environmental footprint?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, we are considering seriously the policy areas which underline the agreement; we attach great importance to them. We support further moves in this area and are carefully considering whether we should move forward with this.

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

My Lords, according to Eurostat figures, our Government spend approximately £10 billion a year subsidising fossil fuels. Do they agree that this is both outdated and extremely damaging, and should be phased out? Can the Minister update me on the Government’s plans in this direction?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, the UK has been a long-standing supporter of multilateral efforts to promote fossil fuel subsidy reform. There is some technical disagreement as to exactly what comprises a fossil fuel subsidy. For example, we would not want the £200 winter fuel payment that we make to pensioners to be included as a subsidy. Some debate is still going on about the coverage of this matter.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, on 1 September, the Minister for Trade Policy claimed:

“Having left the EU, the UK has a unique opportunity to design a set of policies to tackle climate change.”


He added that the Government were actively exploring trade policy options to support ambitious action in this direction. What is the nature of this exploration and what contact have we had with any of the parties to the agreement?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, as I said earlier, we consider this subject to be very important. At the March 2020 WTO General Council, the Secretary of State for International Trade announced that the environment, including climate, was one of the three key priorities for UK ambition and leadership in its position as an independent member of the WTO.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government are considering closely the three policy areas referred to. I am also glad that the Minister keeps me informed of the discussions with New Zealand on a trade agreement. Given this very good proposal from the New Zealand Government, is there not an opportunity in the forthcoming trade agreement with New Zealand that we all hope for to make advances in these three key areas? If global Britain means anything, our trade agreement with New Zealand would be a very good place to start working on these three areas in particular.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, as always, the noble Lord is correct in these matters. We have a close relationship with New Zealand on trading matters; we tend to think alike. We certainly hope to advance these matters during our negotiations.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the UK were to accede to the ACCTS, it would go a long way to demonstrating to a doubting world our commitment to honouring the level playing field clauses contained in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse the noble Lord’s point. Obviously, the decision on whether to join these negotiations has some technical aspects. We very much accept the principles underlying this agreement but some of the fine print still needs to be considered and examined.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I will try not to echo the noble Lord, Lord Reid, by taking a phone call during my question, but I will do so somewhat by saying that, given that three of the signatories to the agreement are European countries that are not members of the EU, does this not provide Brexit Britain with a golden opportunity to lead the non-EU European environmental trade policy response?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, as this matter is now entirely within our competence, we absolutely intend to use our freedom to be one of the leading countries in the world in this area and, hopefully, set an example that other countries may follow.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the initiative on climate change, led by a group of smaller countries, is timely and commendable. Does the Minister agree that the UK is well placed to lead on turning sentiment into reality by pressing for trade and development policies bound tightly to agreed global constraints, in order to protect the environment, which sustains us all?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is completely right to make this point. We want our generation to be the first to leave the world in a better state than we found it. Working on agreements such as this is an important component of that.

[Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, do the Government anticipate any problems in complying with the commitment made by the ACCTS countries to abolish tariffs on environmental goods and services?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, we have already abolished tariffs on, I think, 100 new environmental goods and services. We keep this subject under close review and consult the relevant bodies on it. Where we can do further liberalisation, we would like to do so, of course.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

Can the Minister tell the House what measures the Government intend to take to ensure that the fundamental rights and values of nature that lie at the heart of the Terra Carta, or earth charter—Prince Charles’s excellent initiative, launched today—are reflected in the UK’s approach to future trade agreements?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, when I heard reports of this initiative this morning, I thought it was timely, happening as it is on the day of this Question. I very welcome it and we look forward to building on it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, will my noble friend take this opportunity to confirm once again that we will maintain high standards in environmental protection, food safety and animal welfare? It is concerning that the ban on neonicotinoid pesticides—intended to protect bees—has been extended for only a limited period. Can the Minister assure the House that we will hold to the high standards we enjoyed while we were members of the European Union?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, absolutely; I am happy to give that assurance on these important areas. We certainly did not see that an advantage of leaving the European Union would be that we could lower standards in these areas.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now come to the second Oral Question.

Trade Bill

Lord Grimstone of Boscobel Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on my way in today I was reflecting on the fact that I started last year, at about this time, discussing a trade Bill on Report, so it is nice to see that some traditions in the House of Lords do not change.

I support Amendment 22, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester indicated. He moved it very well. I do not need to rehearse all the arguments because, as my noble friend indicated, we have had many debates on this issue.

I was grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to what looks to be the news that the Senate of the United States may well be changing hands. That will bring about a direct consequence for the UK’s trade negotiations. This amendment refers to domestic standards, but it also links to who we trade with. Will there be pressure on our domestic standards by the country that we seek to have an agreement with? We know that the discussions with America are ongoing, and they are likely now to be impacted by a Democrat-controlled White House and full Congress—both Houses.

The consequence of that will mean that the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act 2015, which put in place conditions on the US trade representative in negotiations on agriculture, environmental standards and objectives, will be reformed, so the United States will have a new position when it comes to the ongoing discussions with the United Kingdom. That is now inevitable, which means that in our approach to the negotiations it is valid that we discuss what our equivalent legislation in this country will be that set our standards, and what the requirements on Ministers will be.

We know that the Government have accepted in part to enshrine standards obligations in a treaty. The European TCA, for example, has set a three-year standstill on organic standards. That is a guarantee, if ever there was one, that there would be no change over a period. Why three years? The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated that it would be a nonsense to put into any form of legislation a commitment that a Minister has given not to deviate from standards, but why then did we legislate for that exact thing last week in the Act for the European agreement? A standstill for three years on organic standards is a restriction on how this Parliament can now operate standards on organic farming. With that legislation, the Government have bound us for three years. I do not think there is any disagreement about that, because offering some degree of certainty to organic farmers on the standards that will be accepted for trading between the United Kingdom and the European Union is a positive thing. We suggest that under Amendment 22 there are other positive elements that should be highlighted regarding the way that we trade.

I was puzzled by the assertion that Amendment 22 will fetter the prerogative of Ministers and will limit their freedom to bring measures to Parliament for approval by indicating in effect instructions under statute of how they exercise their powers. What puzzles me is that the opposite side supported that with a government amendment to the Agriculture Act. I remind the House that Section 42 is a fettering of the prerogative power that limits the freedoms of Ministers, because it requires them, before they bring forward approval under CRaG, to carry out an exercise whereby they seek an independent body, now a statutory independent body—to emphasise the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about something that she has already supported—to report before Parliament acts. Therefore it is not we who do not necessarily trust the Government, because clearly the Government do not trust themselves if they brought forward an amendment to their own Bill that required an independent statutory body to report to Parliament before we even had a vote on it.

The noble Baroness’s point is even more reduced by the very quick search I was able to do on the legislation website for “Ministers must have regard to” before they carry out their duties. There are scores of examples in legislation where Ministers “must have regard to” before they exercise their ministerial functions on immigration, the health service, judicial appointments, inquiries. In most large areas where Ministers carry out their duties, such as negotiating trade or carrying out health duties, judicial appointments or whatever, there are many statutory expectations of what they must do before they carry out their functions. Amendment 22 is appropriate, because it puts in a slightly wider set of criteria on Section 42 of the Agriculture Act, which the Government themselves had put forward.

My final point is on standards in particular. I am glad that Amendment 22 references women’s rights. We debated the UK-Japan agreement at length, and there was consensus around the House that one of the deficiencies of that agreement was that it did not expand on the areas for supporting women’s rights and expanding women’s economic empowerment within that agreement. On human rights, we know that the Cotonou agreement is already out of date and has to be replaced, so the extra elements under proposed new subsection (3) of Amendment 22 are appropriate.

I will make one point on food rights that links to developments just three days ago with regard to food imports. We assume that food that comes into the United Kingdom is of the same standard that we would expect our own producers to sell elsewhere, and we have worked very hard through the Fairtrade Foundation, which we have supported, and other organisations to make sure that that is the case. I was very sad to learn that Brexit tariffs were imposed on a shipment of fair-trade goods from Africa that arrived into Portsmouth—£17,500 on shipments of bananas from Ghana—and that tariffs of 16.5% will be imposed on tuna.

I hope very much that the Government will recognise that this should not be the situation and that it can be rectified. As much as we want to promote other countries improving standards on labour rights, environmental standards and food standards, as we do here at home, we must work in partnership and we should not penalise those for whom we seek to have much higher standards. I am very happy to support Amendment 22.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, it seems very appropriate that we are beginning the new year by welcoming a familiar friend: a debate on standards in the Trade Bill. Yet again, there were most interesting comments from noble Lords in the debate.

I turn first to Amendment 20, so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which seeks to prevent the ratification of FTAs unless there are provisions that ensure that imports under those FTAs comply with the UK’s domestic standards for food safety, animal welfare and the environment.

As noble Lords know, the Bill is principally concerned with continuity agreements, which we have now signed with 63 partner countries. It is rather cheering that each time I speak from this Dispatch Box that number has crept up. I should emphasise to noble Lords that none of those agreements has led to a lowering of domestic standards. Cheap food is not flooding our market. Workers’ rights are not being undermined. All we have done is deliver on our central objective of providing continuity for businesses and consumers.

The amendment has unintended consequences that its signatories have not addressed. It could, I am afraid, jeopardise the UK’s ability to meet its WTO commitments. WTO rules constrain the ability of the UK to restrict imports based on criteria such as animal welfare and environmental protection. These WTO rules play an important and balanced role in containing disguised protectionism, but inevitably mean that there is a real risk of a WTO dispute if we do not handle these important matters with care.

Establishing the amendment as a negotiating objective has the potential to create great uncertainty and undermine continuity for businesses at an already critical time. I know that noble Lords would not wish this. It may of course jeopardise the implementation of continuity agreements, including those already signed but not yet ratified. Let us not forget that UK businesses have a long history of trading under these agreements and rely on them for stability and certainty. Any delay to implementation will impact the import of goods on which businesses and consumers are dependent. Furthermore, the noble Baroness’s amendment could result in similar measures being deployed by trade partners with regard to UK exports. That could prevent UK producers from being able to export goods overseas until they had demonstrated that they had met the domestic standards of our trade partners.

However, we of course understand the importance of this issue and the Government have established a number of initiatives to ensure that any concerns around agriculture and the environment are addressed at each stage of the negotiation processes. This includes: public consultations ahead of new trade negotiations; increased engagement with agriculture and agri-food stakeholders; establishing the trade advisory groups; and of course passing an amendment to this Bill, placing the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing.

I now turn to Amendment 22, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Purvis, alongside the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. As I have explained, our continuity programme maintains high standards in areas including food standards, human rights and environmental obligations. Indeed, in many areas the UK goes much further than the EU. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I am proud of our standards. Let me give some examples.

When discussing workers’ rights, the UK has led the way and the EU is significantly behind us. The statutory minimum wage in the UK for people aged 25 and over is £8.72 an hour, whereas the EU has no legal minimum. Furthermore, UK workers can get statutory sick pay for up to 28 weeks, whereas the EU has no minimum sick leave or sick pay legislation. Further still—this gets to the crux of our debate—the UK has world-leading standards for animal welfare, while food standards are overseen by the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, which I am sure noble Lords agree are the most independent of experts.

The UK has a strong history of protecting human rights and promoting our values globally. We will continue to encourage all states to uphold international human rights obligations. It should also be said that there is no provision within the Trade Bill that could allow amendment of the Human Rights Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all speakers for their contributions to this rather important debate. I was happy to sign up to Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, because surely ensuring online safety for children and otherwise vulnerable people is one of the key issues of our time. Secondly, while the age-appropriate design amendments your Lordships’ House made to the Data Protection Act 2018 have made a start in ensuring that the UK is a safe place for children to be online, much still hangs on the progress of the as yet unpublished online harms Bill. Sadly, there is still rather a long way to go before that become law. If, and when, the online harms Bill, assuming it retains its present ambitions, becomes law, it may provide a bulwark against any tendency the Government may have in future to trade away current or future protections for our children and other vulnerable users. But we are not there yet.

The points made by my noble friends Lord Knight and Lord McNally about the way in which the US tech giant lobby has been forcing changes on recent trade deals are, frankly, chilling. This is not the time to weaken current protections for children online. We must ensure that future trade deals protect our current, and prospective, domestic legislation, and we can do that by taking this issue off the negotiating table.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Sheikh, would preclude the Government from signing an international trade agreement that is not compliant with existing domestic and international obligations relating to the protection of children on the internet, including under the Data Protection Act.

I thank noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for meeting me and discussing this in more depth. Nobody can doubt the passion and resolve she brings to this issue, and I can assure her that the Government share her concerns, and those of other noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully in the debate. I personally fully share those concerns.

That is why I am pleased to confirm that our trade agreements are already fully compliant with existing domestic and international policies protecting children on the internet. We are already committed to making the UK the safest place in the world to be online. We carefully consider any interaction between trade policy and impacts on user protection in trade agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for joining with me in this group of amendments and leading with Amendment 26A on labelling. I have added my name to this amendment as a further step that accompanies all the measures being undertaken to maintain, in a fully transparent manner, the equivalence or consistency of imported food to the current standards that will be applied within the UK. I will speak to Amendments 31A and 34A in my name in this group, and once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her support, and other noble Lords who have spoken.

This returns the House again to the debates undertaken on the Trade and Agriculture Commission during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, which other speakers will remember so well. The conclusion of the Agriculture Act was that the CRaG Act 2010 was amended by new Section 42, while the Trade and Agriculture Commission to implement scrutiny on trade deals would be implemented in the Trade Bill. Unfortunately, the shape of the TAC in this Bill does not comply entirely with the shape agreed with Defra Ministers regarding public health, or the fact that others may well have other ideas about what the TAC should be.

Amendments 31A and 34A would reinsert public health considerations through food imports into the functions of the TAC. Defra Ministers had agreed these aspects and, indeed, Clause 42 includes them. Why, then, does the Minister in the Department for International Trade wish to go back on that agreement? In discussions, Victoria Prentis declared that the Government across all relevant departments, including Defra, the Cabinet Office and the Department for International Trade, had signed off on that agreement. It could well have included the DHSC as well.

I thank the Minister and his team for the discussion undertaken with myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on Monday afternoon. Indeed, I listened carefully to his replies in Committee that gave rise to these amendments. I am grateful to his further but, unfortunately, unconvincing explanations. In Committee, he replied that Ministers can and do receive advice on standards on food from the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, which will take on the role of upholding current legislative bans on foods that would continue to be banned, and that Ministers do not need advice from the TAC as well. He expanded on this on Monday, saying that he sees Amendment 31A as channelling all that advice from the FSA to Ministers through the TAC. To his department, that is not necessary. He wishes the agency’s advice to come directly to his department.

Once again, as experienced when pressing the Minister, the reply seemed to be about process. However, the amendment is not about process and where advice to Ministers comes from. It is about full transparency to Parliament and the public, not merely to Ministers, through the scrutiny of the new export body, the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It does not take over all the reporting structures of the FSA. The TAC can direct and ask questions of the FSA, I am sure, on its investigations and analysis. Normal advice and input from agencies can continue during all the long process of negotiating trade deals, and not be concertinaed down into the CRAG, time-constrained process.

Is the Minister saying that his department did not sign off on the agreements reached during the passage of the Agriculture Bill? Amendment 31A would reinsert expertise on human health into the membership of the TAC, and Amendment 34A would consequently reinsert that advice into the reports of the TAC.

I shall press my amendment to a vote and call on the support of the House to return this matter for further consideration in the Commons, which previously agreed to the Agriculture Bill outcome, with the addition of public health in the scrutiny process of the TAC.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I turn now to Amendment 26A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.

First, it is important to note—I hope this provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness—that all imports must meet the UK’s regulatory requirements, and this includes imports needing to meet our high food safety standards. Of course, this will remain the case. However, the amendment will undermine our abilities to successfully negotiate and agree new international trade agreements and to import goods from trade partners. That will have implications for all goods imported under our international trade agreements, including continuity agreements and the WTO agreements.

Requiring that such labels be applied to imports only would discriminate between domestic and imported goods. This may seem a technical matter, but it would risk violation of the UK’s WTO and FTA commitments, as well as imposing additional labelling costs and administrative burdens on imports. The amendment would also have dire consequences for developing nations, which are unlikely to be able to meet this new requirement and would no longer be able to export goods to the UK, thereby losing a valuable income stream for them, their local businesses and communities.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about conformity marking. This is a complex matter and to ensure that my answer is completely accurate, I will, with his permission, write to him and, of course, place a copy in the Library.

Turning to Amendments 31A and 34A, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for the meeting we had on Monday to discuss these. I completely understand the good intentions that lie behind these amendments. Of course, the Government recognise that public health and health inequalities are important issues. The fact that advice will not be sought from the statutory TAC in relation to this should in no way dilute this message, which I thoroughly endorse. This is why the Government have taken steps to ensure that relevant interests are taken into account at every step of the negotiations process, from public consultations at the start, dedicated trade advisory groups during it and, of course, independent scrutiny of the final deal at the end.

The government amendment to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing, which we discussed at length on the first day of Report, provides an advisory role for the TAC to help inform the report required by Section 42 of the Agriculture Act. The TAC will advise the Secretary of State on the extent to which FTA measures applicable to “trade in agricultural products”—as specified in the Act—are consistent with UK levels of statutory protection relating to animal and plant life and health, animal welfare and the environment. It will not advise on human health because the Government believe that this advice is best taken from other appropriate bodies. This in no way diminishes the importance of that advice; it means that we believe that it would be best for this advice to come from other, better-qualified, bodies. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, we will, of course, make it clear, in due course, where the advice is being drawn from in this important area.

We believe that it would be inappropriate for the TAC to be expanded in the way proposed because there are already groups looking to tackle the issues raised by this amendment. We consider that, if the TAC advised on these issues as well, it would risk wasteful duplication of effort with existing groups with similar functions—indeed, this could overwhelm the TAC and prevent it from fulfilling its obligations in other areas. Important issues such as health inequalities involve multiple factors beyond trade policy that the TAC’s remit cannot fully address. I really believe that this is not the right forum. The TAC’s advice should focus specifically on product characteristics rather than broader policy on public health and health inequalities.

In preparing the Section 42 report, the Secretary of State may also seek advice from any person considered to be

“independent and to have relevant expertise.”

Of course, this will be a transparent process. This does not restrict or exclude experts in any specific area of human health. I hope that this reassures noble Lords, and I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

First, I thank the Minister and the people who spoke in the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who made the point that good labelling gives us confidence in the Government, which we all really need right now. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, who made the point that we now take these things for granted and that we should never do so with something like this: it is a privilege to have good labelling, and it is one that we should hold on to. I will not press this to a Division, but I wholly support the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in his desire to push Amendment 31A to one. I thank the Minister for his words and attempted reassurance, but I am afraid that it has not worked for me at all.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

31: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“PART 2ATHE TRADE AND AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONTrade and Agriculture Commission
(1) The Secretary of State may appoint members to a committee to be known as the Trade and Agriculture Commission (the “TAC”).(2) The TAC’s purpose is to provide advice under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020 (reports relating to free trade agreements).(3) When appointing members to the TAC, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of appointing members who, between them, have expertise in—(a) United Kingdom animal and plant health standards,(b) United Kingdom animal welfare standards,(c) United Kingdom environmental standards as they relate to agricultural products, and(d) international trade law and policy.(4) In subsection (3)(c), “agricultural products” has the meaning given in section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for appointments to, and the purpose of, the Trade and Agriculture Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

34: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Trade and Agriculture Commission: advisory functions
(1) Section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (4), insert—“(4A) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must—(a) request advice from the Trade and Agriculture Commission on the matters referred to in subsection (2) except insofar as they relate to human life or health, and(b) publish the request, together with any associated terms of reference or guidance.(4B) Before laying the report, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any advice received in response to a request under subsection (4A).”(3) In subsection (5)—(a) after “report” insert “or advice received in response to a request under subsection (4A)”;(b) omit “of it”;(c) in paragraph (d) after “report” insert “or advice”.(4) After subsection (6), insert—“(6A) On or before the third anniversary of IP completion day and at least once every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must review the operation of subsections (4A) and (4B) and consider whether to make regulations under subsection (6B).(6B) The Secretary of State may by regulations repeal subsections (4A), (4B) and (6A), and amend subsection (5) to remove reference to advice requested in accordance with subsection (4A).(6C) Regulations under subsection (6B) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and may not come into force before the third anniversary of IP completion day.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to seek advice from the Trade and Agriculture Commission in preparing a report under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 34A (to Amendment 34)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

35: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Trade and Agriculture Commission: further provision
(1) Members of the TAC are not to be regarded as servants or agents of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.(2) The Secretary of State may provide members of the TAC with such staff, accommodation, equipment or other facilities as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate in connection with the preparation of advice requested under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020.(3) The Secretary of State may pay, or make provision for paying, expenses to any member of the TAC in connection with the preparation of advice requested under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020.(4) Schedule (Trade and Agriculture Commission: public authorities legislation) contains provision applying legislation relating to public bodies to the TAC.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make provision about administrative matters relating to the Trade and Agriculture Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, anybody seeking to follow this Trade Bill, including the Bill that we had before Christmas, will struggle to follow the three elements through a natural progression—but we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his forensic skill. He has been able to assist in the scrutiny of this, and the questions he asks are very valid. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has brought forward his amendment, and I look forward to the response from the Government and the Minister. Like others, I welcome the Minister’s very full letter in response to the debate that we had on that fast-tracked piece of legislation.

There are a couple of areas that are still troubling me, and I hope the Minister will be able to explain those. I am happy with his explanation that it is purely a matter of parliamentary drafting, with the same legal effect. I will use this ad nauseam in my future career in this House, when it comes to any Ministers quibbling over the drafting of any amendments that I bring forward. I will say that it is purely drafting, with the same legal effect—so, speaking personally, I am very happy that that precedent has been set.

I am glad that the amendments to this Bill, which will effectively become the successor to the fast-tracked Bill, reference HMRC sharing information with the devolved Administrations. This goes back to the very first time we discussed these amendments, so I am happy and pleased that the Government have indicated their support for that.

However, I am interested in the language of Amendment 37, which I welcome, when it states:

“facilitating the exercise by a devolved authority of the authority’s functions relating to trade”.

Can the Minister outline what these are? In the previous group, on consulting the devolved Administrations on trade agreements, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, was at pains to stress—and was accurate—that, under the Scotland Act and others, trade, as far as international relations are concerned, is a reserved matter.

However, we all know that there are “functions relating to trade” in the devolved Administrations; we know this for certain because it will be in the Bill. HMRC will facilitate the exercise of those functions by the powers under what will be this Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what those “functions relating to trade” are; it would be helpful to us to know the extent of the Government’s position as regards what responsibilities for trade the devolved Administrations have.

Another thing still niggling me is referenced in the Minister’s letter. I have asked on a number of occasions why it was not more straightforward to put authorities that are linked with the ports and their access routes, in Scotland in particular, under those areas in the Bill. The Government have said that the powers were needed in England primarily, as the Minister’s letter stated, because those authorities were identified as the ones facing the greatest disruption at the end of the transition period, but this legislation is now for the long term and this data will also be shared with the WTO and other international bodies.

The Government have said that if it becomes necessary to add an authority in a devolved Administration country, they can use order-making powers to do it, but in subsection (4) there is a reference to an offence in Scotland for a non-existing authority breaching the disclosing information powers, and it carries a term not exceeding 12 months, so for a body that is not included in the legislation it is a 12-month prison sentence for disclosing information. That happens to be twice the length of time that it will now be in England, under government Amendment 40, which is six months. I do not know why that is the case, so perhaps the Minister can explain. There seems to be a ghost criminal offence created by this legislation that does not impact on anybody and is twice as much as it is in England. I just do not understand why.

I hope that the Minister can respond. I will certainly be supporting these amendments. The letter was very helpful and gave the process for indicating when the sunset clause will kick in for the legislation that we passed before Christmas, and given that this legislation is now for the very long term I hope that the Minister can respond to the points that have been raised.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I am perpetually grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his contribution to the discussion of this Bill. Turning to Amendment 36A, in the noble Lord’s name, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that for the Government to grow and strengthen the UK’s export capability, we need a clear understanding of the UK’s exporters. This would ensure that the work we do is targeted and tailored to the businesses where it will deliver the maximum benefit.

Clause 7 sets out the powers needed for the Government to collect data to establish the number and identity of UK businesses exporting goods and services, particularly the smaller businesses and sole traders that may not be readily identifiable from existing data, and where the Government can provide a helping hand, something of course which the Government enjoy doing, so that they can reach new markets.

Amendment 36A to remove Clause 7(4) would restrict the ability of the Government to fully implement the new voluntary—I stress voluntary—exporter question. A similar amendment was discussed in Committee, when noble Lords raised concerns that secondary legislation should not have the power to change primary legislation. However, to include new questions within the relevant tax return—it is that very specified matter—an affirmative SI will be required to amend the relevant legislation. That is the purpose of Clause 7(4), which provides the necessary powers to do so. I repeat that Clause 7(4) is necessary to ensure that the relevant exporter questions are included, as intended on tax return forms. The practical implementation of this will be a tick box on tax returns which the person filling in the tax return can tick if he wishes to identify himself as an exporter; it is entirely voluntary. On that basis, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

37: Clause 8, page 5, line 22, after “trade,” insert—
“(ab) facilitating the exercise by a devolved authority of the authority’s functions relating to trade,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that HMRC is able to disclose information to a devolved authority.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

39: Clause 9, page 7, line 6, after “2016” insert “(save that the powers conferred by this section are to be taken into account when determining whether a disclosure is prohibited by those provisions)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would correct a drafting error: the words in parenthesis should limit both paragraphs in subsection (8).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

40: Clause 10, page 7, line 46, at end insert—
“(5) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020, the reference in subsection (4)(b)(i) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would take account of the fact that magistrates do not have powers to confer a 12 month sentence (because paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 is yet to come into force).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised a very interesting question. We need to think a bit harder about it than we did when we first looked at this in Committee.

The issue is not so much with the powers split between the Commons and Lords in relation to financial matters, which I think was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is more to do with—as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was trying to get us on to—the reality of the grounds on which we have to consider more widely and the relationship between a pure measure, such as tariffs, and the way in which it might be used in any trade dispute, or any day-to-day consideration of our trading relationships. Out of that comes a consideration about whether this is an executive issue or there are also parliamentary concerns.

Taking it from the other end, the fact that the powers enshrined in the original legislation are for a negative instrument suggests that the Government have taken the view that this needs the very lowest level of parliamentary scrutiny. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out very well, this cannot be right. These areas often deal with very important and quite meaty issues to do with industrial policy, employment and the whole economy. There seems to be a distortion being built up between the particular issue in hand, the remedies available and the role of Parliament in considering it.

Surely it would be wrong if we ended up in a situation where the only parliamentary process was consideration of a negative statutory instrument when, in truth, the effects it was trying to ameliorate were causing concern on quite a large scale in the country. I do not have a solution to this. I do not think this Bill is going to provide us with an outlet. I wonder whether the Minister might consider taking this away. Perhaps a more considered review is needed in a couple of years’ time, when we have had experience of how it works in practice.

Without wishing to put words in his mouth or ask him to commit to something he cannot commit to, can he give an assurance that this is something the Government will keep a close eye on? Should issues arise during the next year or so, an appropriate way forward would be to take this as an issue and see whether, as a result of the scale of the penalties, the style of the approach being taken through Parliament and the impact this is having on the economy more widely, it might be best dealt with through a review process.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I turn to Amendment 41 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, which seeks to ensure that regulations made under Section 15 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 will be made under the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I remind noble Lords that that section allows the Secretary of State to vary the rate of import duty—that is, increase or decrease tariffs—in the context of an international trade dispute.

First, I begin by thanking my noble friend for his commitment to this issue, alongside the correspondence and meetings that we have had on the matter. I hope my noble friend found them at least partly as useful as I did.

Noble Lords may recall that I explained in Committee why I believe that it is imperative that HMG are able to enforce, swiftly and confidently, the UK’s rights under international trade agreements. I explained to the House that the conduct of state-to-state trade disputes is a matter of foreign diplomacy and is covered by the royal prerogative. I also reminded the House that international litigation, including launching and defending international trade disputes, can be extremely sensitive, with far-reaching geopolitical implications. I shall not attempt to justify sensitivity in itself, of course, as a reason for avoiding scrutiny. However, when that sensitivity may give rise to matters that are extremely prejudicial to the UK’s position, it must be absolutely right to take it into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House; I know the hour is late. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining those examples. He gave the impression that Parliament should not necessarily have the ability to approve any of these measures, but that this should be Government to Government, prerogative to prerogative. However, the legislation provides for parliamentary approval if it is through a negative procedure. So Parliament could still annul this, which would bring about all the issues he warns against. He seems to be making the case that Parliament should not even have the ability to annul some of these measures. If Parliament ultimately has the ability to approve or not to approve, we are in a different realm. I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, indicated, the Government could at least reflect on this debate and the points that have been made on the benefit of having a wider degree of scrutiny, or at least public debate, of some of these aspects.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. The Government will of course reflect on this debate. I perfectly understand the requirement for the annulment power, but I believe that both Houses of Parliament would wish to use that annulment power sensibly and sensitively, in light of the circumstances which might underlie it.

[Lord Lansley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who contributed to this short debate. It demonstrated the value, even at this late hour, of some of the additional issues brought out in the context of the scenarios and specific instances that my noble friend put in his response to the debate.

I think I have been inadvertently responsible for misleading the House. I intended to talk about parliamentary approval, but in doing so got carried away and talked about this House. Of course, this House would have no role. The regulations made under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act, if “made affirmative”, would be subject to the approval only of the House of Commons.

Therefore, in response to my noble friend Lady Noakes, I make two points. First, we are accustomed, from time to time, to making amendments to Bills that run the risk of being declined by the other place on grounds of financial privilege. However, that does not mean that we never make such amendments and invite the Commons to think again. The second point that I should make to her is that, in this instance, the effect of the amendment would be to give the House of Commons—but not our House—the right to consider regulations made under this power.

That said, I do not resile from the view that sensitive matters can, none the less, be debated in Parliament, and it is not beyond the wit of Ministers and civil servants to ensure that, in explaining the choices that have been made in the regulation, they do not disclose information of value to those who would do us harm. That happens on many occasions and, in fact—even in the scenarios to which my noble friend refers—the choices we have made and why we have made them would very often not have been lost upon other parties in trade disputes. I do not resile from the view that because something is sensitive and important it should be debated in Parliament—in this instance, because it relates to what are effectively attacks, only in the other place.

None the less, the helpful response from my noble friend —who genuinely tried to explain why the Government took the approach they did, rather than what was set out originally in the Explanatory Memorandum—took us some way towards thinking about this matter in a way described by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. We may yet come back to this matter, but not during the passage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

42: Clause 11, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
““devolved authority” has the meaning given in section 4(1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government’s amendment to clause 8, page 5, line 22.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for allowing us to conclude at the place where we started: procurement. It is perhaps a sign—I agree with the noble Baroness—that there has been a creeping increase in executive power during this process. At least the scrutiny that this House has afforded the Bill has been thorough, even if the Government may think it has been too long. Nevertheless, we started discussions on this Bill with procurement. And then the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill was introduced, scrutinised and passed before we came to the conclusion of this.

Of interest, the question that I asked the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill was how the regulations on procurement would interact with those that will come through our obligations under international procurement. Could the Minister give us a timeframe for when we expect to see the implementation of many of the Government’s policies on procurement that will now be authorised through our membership of the global arrangements? That interaction is going to be very important.

I have sympathy with the amendment on the basis that the extent of procurement goes far beyond what many people may think, which is simply about the Government purchasing goods. So much of our NHS, in both primary and mental health, is provided by contractors through procurement. The extent is really quite extensive—it is a considerable part of the UK economy—so this is not something that we should be shy about discussing in brief. It is of major importance to the UK economy, and indeed it will be a key part of our international relations.

So I ask the Minister to outline a little more detail. If he cannot give me that information today, I will be happy for him to write to me, because we will be needing to debate in full the Government’s procurement policies going forward, preferably through resolutions in both Houses. We wish to see the details of the Government’s intentions.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I will now address Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, which seeks to apply the affirmative procedure for any regulations made using the powers under Clause 1.

Perhaps understandably, because this is the last amendment that we will be addressing on Report, noble Lords wished to get certain matters off their chest at the commencement of debate on this amendment, so perhaps they will understand if I do not respond specifically to those points but restrict my comments to the amendment. I will of course commit to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I will write to him with details of the exact timetable, which I do not have available to me at the moment.

Turning to this amendment and, as I say, restricting my comments to the amendment, given the late hour, I first remind noble Lords that the UK will accede to the GPA on the basis of continuity. This means that the “coverage schedules” referenced by noble Lords today and in Committee will remain broadly the same as those that the UK has had under EU membership. I know that noble Lords have suspicious minds and I say “broadly” because the UK’s independent GPA schedules incorporate technical changes to reflect the fact that the UK is no longer an EU member state, and there are now successor government entities other than those listed in Annexes 1 to 3. I have provided more details of these changes in a written response to a question asked on this issue in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which I am happy to outline to the House.

The UK’s independent coverage schedules were shared with the International Trade Committee in 2018, along with the text of the GPA and the schedules of other GPA parties. They were then laid before Parliament for scrutiny, in line with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, and were concluded without objection in 2019. Since then, Switzerland has agreed to implement the GPA, as revised in 2012. As such, to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and transparency, the new Swiss schedules were laid before Parliament in October 2020. So I hope noble Lords will agree that there has been ample opportunity to scrutinise the terms of the UK’s GPA accession.

With regard to the scrutiny of our future participation in the GPA as an independent party, I again reassure noble Lords that provisions under Clause 1 are limited to a very specific set of scenarios in the GPA. I stress that this does not include any broader renegotiation of the GPA or of the UK’s market access offer to the GPA.

In the short term, the powers are required to implement an update to the list of central government entities in Annexe 1 of the UK’s GPA schedule. The update will reflect the fact that many entities have merged, moved or changed name since the list was originally written. Given the limited nature of such changes, I believe it is not appropriate to apply the affirmative procedure to Clause 1. Moreover, it is important that these necessary regulations be made swiftly because, as I often find myself saying, if there are delays, the UK could be in breach of its obligations under international law. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House has twice considered the power in this clause and on neither occasion saw the need to comment on the use of the negative procedure.

As we are now reaching the end of Report, I will make some concluding remarks. I think that anybody who has witnessed the way our House has dealt with this Report stage can only admire the scrutiny noble Lords have given. That scrutiny has illustrated various aspects of the Bill which were not necessarily fully visible to people at the beginning, and it has drawn people’s attention to how important trade policy now is to the United Kingdom. The fact that the United Kingdom now has full control of its trade policy will lead in the years to come to some very positive developments, as we have already seen with the free trade agreements we are negotiating.

I very much thank noble Lords for the way they have approached Report stage. This is the first Bill that I have had the pleasure of taking through the House, other than our “son of Bill”, which we did before Christmas. I thank noble Lords for the way that they have assisted me and dealt with my inadequacies from time to time, no doubt, in the way that I have presented this Bill.

I thank your Lordships for the attention you have given to this Bill and I look forward to Third Reading. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for their support for this amendment. I also thank the Minister for his honesty in pointing out our shortcomings in failing to take up these issues when we previously had the opportunity to do so; but that is another matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

49: After Schedule 5, insert the following new Schedule—
“TRADE AND AGRICULTURE COMMISSION: PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LEGISLATIONPublic records
1_ In Part 2 of the Table in paragraph 3 in Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records), at the appropriate place insert—“Trade and Agriculture Commission.”Investigations by the Parliamentary Commissioner
2_ In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments subject to investigation), at the appropriate place insert—“Trade and Agriculture Commission.”House of Commons disqualification
3_ In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which members are disqualified), at the appropriate place insert—“Trade and Agriculture Commission.”Northern Ireland Assembly disqualification
4_ In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which members are disqualified), at the appropriate place insert—“Trade and Agriculture Commission.”Freedom of information
5_ In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities to which this Act applies), at the appropriate place insert—“Trade and Agriculture Commission.”Public sector equality duty
6_ In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to the public sector equality duty), in the group of entries under the heading “Industry, Business, Finance, etc”, at the appropriate place insert—“Trade and Agriculture Commission.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide the Schedule introduced by the amendment adding a new clause called “Trade and Agriculture Commission: further provision”.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel]

50: In the Title, line 2, after “it;” insert “to make provision about the Trade and Agriculture Commission;”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would amend the long title to reflect new provision about the Trade and Agriculture Commission.