Trade Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hain for pursuing these issues of such immense importance to the lives and prosperity of the people who live on the island of Ireland. I thank all those who have contributed to this rather good debate on the issues he raised. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, reminded us, successive UK Governments of all political colours have supported the people of Ireland and the peace process.

These amendments speak to that history. The Northern Ireland protocol is now the definitive statement about how trade in goods, but not services, is to be organised going forward. However, as my noble friend Lord Hain said, it must be supported, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, reminded us, it is really complicated. Amendment 26, which we support, raises how future UK FTAs will impact trade in goods and services in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to any discrimination which might arise, directly or indirectly.

The Minister will almost certainly say that we should not worry and that all the issues raised today are covered. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, urged us to move on. However, as my noble friend Lord Hain said, future free trade agreements may well raise issues, and he is right to insist that this Bill makes the position crystal clear. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, warned us, the absence of such a clause may have a disproportionate impact on the current situation. We should heed carefully his words about fear and uncertainty ahead and do what we can to mitigate it.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that the Government should offer to bring this issue back at Third Reading, but I am not optimistic. If they do not, we will support my noble friend Lord Hain if he decides to divide the House.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Altmann for their amendments.

Amendment 17 strives to make the ratification of any future UK-EU trade agreement conditional on compliance with the Northern Ireland protocol. As noble Lords will be aware, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, himself has said, we have been overtaken by events—I think the word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, was “eclipsed”—and the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement has now been ratified. Noble Lords will also be aware that we remain fully committed to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol.

However, I am happy to provide further reassurances in my remarks today—I hope I will be able to do so. Our commitment is demonstrated by the agreement we have reached with the EU in the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee on the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. To reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh, this upholds unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to their most important market, eliminating any requirement for export declarations for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. It safeguards Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory, establishing the platform to preserve tariff-free trade for Northern Ireland businesses, protect internal UK trade and maintain the UK’s VAT area.

On the question raised by my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lady Neville-Rolfe on supermarkets, the Government acknowledge there are some teething issues and are working closely with the relevant stakeholders to urgently iron them out. The issues are being addressed, to give some reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for tabling Amendment 23. My noble friend and I do not usually speak on the same amendment, but there is a particular range of issues that I want to speak to on this one—issues that no other noble Lords have addressed. I am talking about controlling advertising, a fast-rising area of concern.

When I talk about advertising I also mean some of the broader online issues such as product placement and payments to influencers, which are effectively indirect forms of advertising. This is where I agree with a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, yesterday, which may surprise the House. He expressed concern about differential controls on advertising for broadcasters in the UK, which do not apply online. Yet we know that consumption of media is very much blending now; indeed, the divisions between broadcast and online material, from consumers’ point of view, are pretty artificial these days.

In some areas we already have quite tight controls in the UK for broadcasters and others—on smoking advertising, for example, as well as some controls on gambling advertising, and limited controls on alcohol advertising. We have also seen, particularly in the London underground, controls on the advertising of unhealthy food. As we start to face up to our role as chair of COP26, and face the climate emergency and the nature crisis, a broader concern about advertising is rising, in relation to its place in driving consumption, and driving the destruction of our planet.

The amendment is about children in particular. It is Green Party policy that all advertising directed at primary school age pupils, who psychologists tell us cannot distinguish between advertising and programmes, or editorial content, should be banned. In the online context, it should be possible to create a situation in which we can protect children up to a certain age from online advertising.

I note that just before Christmas, on a question about gambling advertising, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, speaking for the Government, said:

“We very much welcome moves by the major platforms that give individuals greater control”.—[Official Report, 14/12/20; col. 1518.]


over gambling advertising. Should a future Government decide to enforce even the rights of users to block advertising, I suggest that we do not want to see trade Bills stopping that happening.

I conclude by referring to what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said. What we are talking about here is giving guidance and democratic control—sovereign control—to our trade negotiators in future trade deals.

[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 ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

24: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Consent of devolved authorities
(1) No international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom so far as it contains provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1), unless the Scottish Ministers consent. (2) No international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom so far as it contains provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1), unless the Welsh Ministers consent.(3) No international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom so far as it contains provision which would be within the devolved competence of a Northern Ireland department (within the meaning given in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1), unless a Northern Ireland devolved authority (within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1) consents.(4) No international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom unless a Minister of the Crown has consulted and sought the consent of devolved authorities on the implementation of international trade agreements.(5) An international trade agreement may be authenticated by the United Kingdom without the consent of devolved authorities sought under subsection (4) only if—(a) the period of one month beginning with the day on which consent was first sought has elapsed, and(b) a Minister of the Crown has made a statement to each House of Parliament explaining why consent has not been obtained.”

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

My Lords, Amendment 24 is in my name. Although devolution is a settled fact in our constitutional arrangements, it is odd how often we find that legislation brought before Parliament either ignores it completely or makes token gestures in that direction. The recent experience of those involved in this Bill and the then United Kingdom Internal Market Bill has made this abundantly clear.

The proposed new clause is offered to the Government as a template that I hope they might find of interest as they consider matters relating to the devolved settlements. Building on successful amendments that were made to the then United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which were accepted by the Government, they propose a two-stage approach: where devolved competences are engaged, there is a separate process, and, where they are not, committing to consult and seek consent from the devolved Administrations should be combined with setting a one-month time limit for the consent process. This proved successful in what became the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, and, as far as we are aware, it is acceptable to the devolved Administrations. I hope it will be of interest to the Minister when he comes to respond, and I thank others who have decided to support this amendment in this debate. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and to back his amendment. As the noble Lord said, this is territory that we have covered over and over again, so I will not take a great deal of time. The sections of this amendment say that the devolved Scottish Government should not be overruled on matters within their purview; that the Welsh Ministers should not be overruled on matters devolved to them; and that the Northern Ireland Government should not be overruled on matters devolved to them.

We have here something of a reflection of what happened on 30 December, when many noble Lords participated, in one way or another, and in one day both Houses passed a Bill to which we had no consent from the devolved Administrations—indeed, there was opposition from two of them. This amendment aims to create, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said, a blueprint for the way forward. It is a balanced amendment. Clause 5 says that if the Westminster Government seeks to overrule the devolved Administrations, that has to be explained to both Houses of Parliament.

We hear an enormous amount about sovereignty and taking back control. This Bill seeks to ensure that the nations of the UK are in control of their own destiny in the areas where they have been given powers. I very much hope that your Lordships’ House will back this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, while I absolutely share the noble Lord’s belief that the UK Government should be working closely with the devolved Administrations on our trade policy, I do not think that this amendment is the appropriate way to achieve this, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to withdraw it.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I always listen very carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and again I thought that he spoke with great sense about some of the issues here. However, I was left a little puzzled by where he ended up in his contribution. If the best possible deal in a future trade negotiation means that we have to change the devolution settlement, where will that judgment be taken? At the moment, the issue we have is that there is no sufficient structure or support for the interrelationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to resolve the difficulties and tensions that will occur most on these issues.

This is a little unfair, because the Minister perhaps needed more notice, but, when he responded to the questions about Welsh lamb from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, he did not get down to the details. Perhaps he would write to them with a more considered position, because of exactly the point they made: where is a decision that affects the narrow interests—as some might call them—of Welsh upland farmers going to be taken, in relation to a trade deal that has been made by the UK Government as a reserved matter? This is of real importance to those affected by it in the devolved Administrations.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, suggested that Ministers need to wake up and smell the coffee, and that there is a need to reset this relationship, which I have already covered. He made the very good point that, just because a matter is reserved, it does not mean that good would not flow from a debate and a discussion, and the emergence of common positions around the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom.

That is where we were trying to get to with this amendment: it is clear that, while the Government are going through their paces and beginning to get the hang of how negotiations need to happen, they do not yet have the mood, spirit and body language—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—in their day-to-day workings. That shows, I am afraid. If you want an example of that, the Minister ended on the changes that have been made between the Bill’s first emergence in 2017 and today, but of course they include a number of amendments to try to paper over the arrangements that previously existed for trade, as it affects the devolved Administrations. That makes my point.

However, this is not the time to force change. This needs more debate and discussion, important use of the existing channels, and some reform of those channels. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

36A: Clause 7, page 5, line 9, leave out subsection (4)

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

My Lords, the meat of this short group of amendments is in government Amendments 37 to 42, as listed, which cover the main issues we need to debate.

I am sure that the Minister, when he comes to respond, will not be upset with me if I say that I expect him to say that he would not expect, when considering amendments, ever to be in a situation where people were legislating for a second time on an issue that had already been decided in a different Bill. However, a bit like Groundhog Day, that is what we are doing today, because this part of the Bill has already been put into law and exists as the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act. I am very grateful to the Minister for his letter of 4 January, which answered a number of points that were raised during the very truncated session we had on the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill in order that one section of this Bill could be in place from 1 January—although it is intended to be sunsetted as soon as the Trade Bill has received Royal Assent.

Amendment 36A is very limited and I do not expect a very full response to it, because it is not germane to the main issue before us, which is to try to make sure that the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act, as it now is, contains the same wording, effectively, as will be in the Trade Bill when it receives Royal Assent. We should not impede that, because it is important that we get it right and that the sunset clause takes place.

However, during the debate on the then Trade (Disclosure of Information) Bill, I asked why Clause 7 of the current Bill was not included in the sections relating to disclosure of information which follow Clause 7, particularly those from Clause 8 to Clause 10 in the current Bill. The answer I received was that they dealt with different issues, even though they were also about the disclosure of information required and, indeed, are covered by amendments that follow. The purpose, therefore, of having this amendment at this stage of this Bill is simply to get on the record for response that the Minister made the first time around, in order that we have both parts of the legislation which will end up being in the Trade Bill in sequence and saying the same thing. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have addressed any remaining concerns held by noble Lords relating to the clauses being debated. On that basis, I will move government Amendments 37 to 40 and Amendment 42 when the time comes.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in this short debate. I started by suggesting that it was Groundhog Day, but we ended up in Alice in Wonderland. We may need to think about another film, play or book to get us through to Third Reading if we are to have even more amendments to this much-amended part of the Bill—and, indeed, two Bills.

I owe the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, an apology for not making it clear what I was at when I tabled Amendment 36A, but I congratulate her on picking up the reason why I picked that particular reference in subsection (4). On the surface it seemed an extraordinary power to take. She might feel, like I do, that the way the Minister responded did not assuage the concern that the Bill takes power to modify an Act of Parliament when all we were told about was making sure that a particular box was ticked in a tax return, for which a statutory instrument would be required. These things did not seem to square up, but given that we will come back at Third Reading I am sure she or I will take this further should we wish to.

The only other person who came out of this discussion badly was my noble friend Lord Grantchester, who I think was inadvertently blamed for making the Minister come back with the amendments on Report that he thought he had put through in Committee. It was a long time ago—indeed, it feels like even longer. We actually started Committee on this Bill a second time around—I mean the Trade Bill, not the other Bill—in a Committee Room. I know that it is a convention that amendments made then do not necessarily go into the Bill at that stage, so I thought it was appropriate for this to be brought back on Report. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Grantchester was in any way to blame, although he might have given expression to the way it happened.

We have more than covered the ground that the amendment would open up. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, with all his forensic skills, must be satisfied that he has most of the answers he wanted. I certainly have, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 36A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am less squeamish that the noble Baroness about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I am grateful to him for bringing it forward. As our discussion about the Trade Remedies Authority demonstrated, the framework for how the UK, now outside the European Union, will approach trade remedies on disputes where we believe that another country is acting beyond WTO standards and principles, is much more to do with public debate and full, wide parliamentary scrutiny than whether the parent legislation involved financial privilege. Our debates about the Trade Remedies Authority lead naturally to asking what is going to provide a framework of accountability for any decisions taken as a result of its recommendations.

I have only one issue to raise with the Minister. I was not satisfied with the response in Committee to a matter I raised. One of the justifications for not supporting the amendment was that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, the Minister said that there is sensitivity to some of these aspects. Of course there is sensitivity: that is true by definition. In any trade dispute, there will be sensitive aspects; I do not think that is denied. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely right: we were discussing a previous version of this Bill on Report when the WTO authorised the United States to impose $7.5 billion-worth of tariffs on the EU. The WTO subsequently authorised the EU to impose countermeasures of $4 billion and, as the noble Lord said, from the United States’ point of view, the question whether to make a recalculation for the EU 27 is now being reviewed.

The most important element, to my mind, is that the WTO authorised it. I do not think anybody on any side of this House is proposing that the UK should act illegally in a trade dispute in which we are then seeking to be on the right side, inasmuch as we would not use WTO procedures. The WTO procedures are quite clear: you cannot put forward countermeasures which will include tariffs unless they have gone through the due process in the WTO.

Therefore, the notification of the WTO, with the tariff measures as part of the countermeasures, will be in the public domain. It will be debated. It is therefore nonsense to think that there will be scrutiny, transparency and a public debate regarding our measures to the WTO, but not in Parliament. Many sectors will be involved, as we saw with the US measures. I do not need to go into the detail, but be it whisky, textiles or the metal industry, these measures and potential countermeasures have an impact domestically on certain sectors, regions and nations of the UK. Therefore, it is right that, if we are to make a measured and targeted response to a third country that we believe has acted against its obligations, we ensure that we are not acting in self-defeating self-interest, and a degree of accountability is thus required.

I simply cannot understand why the Government believe that measures that have been made public cannot then be approved by Parliament. I continuously support the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in this regard.

[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.