Cultural and Education Exchanges

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, as the noble Earl confirmed, the issue here goes much further than simply school and college cultural exchange visits, although all the points he and others made about the disaster that will follow the lack of Erasmus+ and all the human, cultural and institutional contact that will be lost rang very true, as did the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about the need for reciprocity.

Many Members of your Lordships’ House have been appalled by the way the Government sold the cultural sector, one of the most important and vibrant sectors of our economy, down the river when the Home Office refused to allow in the EU-UK trade deal a sensible, pragmatic and mutually beneficial visa and associated permits system for those who wish to perform abroad—something that operated successfully since 1972, as many others said.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, has repeatedly answered questions on this at the Dispatch Box. He continues to blame the EU for the failure to arrive at a deal on this, although all the evidence seems to say otherwise. He has said at the Dispatch Box that, absent a pan-EU- UK deal, bilateral agreements are the way forward, but details are extremely hard to establish. Which countries are involved? Where are we with each of them? What is the timescale? Has the Home Office agreed with the approach? Is it prepared to offer the reciprocal arrangements and visas necessary for EU citizens to visit this country?

As others have said, the Minister has a reputation for openness and transparency at the Dispatch Box. The issue before us is vital to the creative industries. I hope she can give clear and unequivocal answers to the questions I have asked and the others that have been raised today.

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

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I cannot pretend expertise on trade Bills. We have heard brilliant speeches here today, but I want to raise four issues with the Minister.

The first is services. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained, financial services is the second largest arena in the services sector. Excluding the treaty on long-term insurance, many other sectors are governed by a number of equivalency agreements between the European Union and Switzerland, many of them designed with the City and the UK market in mind. I am completely unaware of what has happened to those and what the consequences of that could be. I would normally have seen any SIs concerning the financial services sector and I do not recall having seen SIs in this area, so I am quite worried, particularly as all this work was done with the expectation that we would have left the European Union by now and that those would have kicked in.

The second issue I want to pick up on is one that a number of noble Lords have spoken about: accumulation. If I were sitting in the Swiss position and allowing only a three-year period for accumulation triangulation to continue before it came up for review, I would be expressing the expectation that it would take three years for most companies to reorganise their supply chains in order to make accumulation in the triangular mode unnecessary. That would seem to greatly disadvantage the UK in the long run. Does the Minister have a reading on why that particular deadline was put in place?

The third area is mutual recognition agreements. I recognise that only about 10% of trade in goods between the UK and Switzerland is governed currently by mutual recognition agreements, but the continuity agreement basically covers only three-quarters of that. So about £500 million of exports from the UK to Switzerland each year are not covered by the rollover of mutual recognition agreements. Can the Minister tell us what the consequences of that are and whether she thinks that the additional cost of becoming certified in two jurisdictions is de minimis, or whether she sees that trade disappearing or transferring over to the EU? There is nothing here to give us any sense of the impact of that.

The last area that I wanted to pick up on was the authorised economic operator, but from a slightly different angle from that of my colleague. As I look at the document that was helpfully produced in February by the Department for International Trade, it says, interestingly, although most of the trade between the UK and Switzerland is indeed governed by firms which have taken out authorised economic operator status or have been awarded it, that,

“Switzerland applies broadly the same checks to AEO and non-AEO traders”.

I raise this because that coincides with most of the information that I have had from companies, that getting authorised economic operator status is exceedingly expensive, both to get in the first place and then to maintain, and it makes not the slightest difference when you get to a border—you are held up for just as long. Since this is the structure on which so many Brexiteers are building their expectation of how we would deal with the Irish border, will the department look at its own experience and understand that this mechanism does not work well at present and that no one seems to have come forward with any way for it to work efficiently or effectively in the future? It is evident from the department’s own document that this is not an answer to the Irish border problem.

I will make one last comment and then sit down. My attention was originally drawn to this trade deal by the press releases at the time, and I was pleased that they were so positive, as was the press coverage: no disruption in economic and trade relationships between the UK and Switzerland. Yet when I dug into this—which others have done far better and more forensically than me—it was full of holes. I ask for there to be much greater consciousness of giving a full picture when reports are made both to the public and generally to this House. We all understand that these are difficult, but the pretence that they are easy, complete and deliver no change is a poor message to give the companies that will bear the burden of the loss of opportunity and access that is consequent on the shift from the current circumstance to this continuity arrangement.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I do not think there will be any difficulty on these Benches about ensuring the continuity we will require in order that there is certainty for British businesses that they can operate on the correct side of international law. The only areas that I hope the Minister will clarify—her introductory remarks were quite helpful—concern, first, the application process that will be required if we are to have a stand-alone position outside European regulations. The applications for authorisations will have to be made to the Secretary of State, as the regulations state. Will the Minister indicate what process such applications will involve?

The second area, which the noble Baroness will not be surprised that I raise, concerns the matter of another judiciary within the United Kingdom. While, as part of Scottish criminal law, this will be a reserved power, nevertheless the criminal penalties that may well apply on the potential breach of some of these things by Scottish businesses would have to be prosecuted by the Scottish courts. One of the examples the Minister raised, that of Iran, is very relevant for the very large Scottish oil and gas industry that trades across the whole region, including within Iran. It is a relevant point, given the not-so-subtle threats from the United States that it will consider breach of its sanctions policy by those British businesses that continue to trade with Iran under a perfectly legal framework. If we are to have a stand-alone approach, absolute certainty, clarity and reassurance would be very helpful. The Government indicated that no consultation was necessary in bringing forward the statutory instrument. I was slightly surprised about that, given that we have two distinct judicial systems in the UK.

The Government also indicated that before the UK leaves the EU, guidance on how a blocking regulation would apply to the UK would be published. Given that when this instrument was drafted the intention was that, potentially, we would leave on Friday without an agreement, can the Minister say whether this guidance has been published? If it has not, when will it be, to offer that reassurance?

Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The Blocking Regulation currently provides that the Commission is to regularly report on the effects of the extraterritorial third country legislation. This will become a requirement on the part of the Secretary of State in the retained version”.


Through what mechanism do the Government intend to do that? Will it be through Written Statements to Parliament, or will a public document be laid before Parliament to provide that transparency? I hope that the Minister can clarify all those aspects.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I, too, am very grateful to the Minister for her very full introduction to this SI. It took us into areas new to me, such as the intersection between foreign policy and trade policy. That is an interesting issue and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was right to focus his remarks on how these things will work in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

When the Minister introduced the SI, she pointed out that much of the regulation that has been transposed was originally introduced in 1996 in response to the extraterritorial reach of certain sanctions imposed by the US in relation to Cuba in the 1990s. Obviously, it has been updated since then, particularly with reference to Iran. It set a train of thought in my mind about how exactly our current foreign policy meshes with these regulations. With particular reference to Iran, the commentary I have been reading seems to suggest that the package of measures that is being transferred across would encourage the European Investment Bank and banks in the UK—possibly even the Bank of England—to finance activities in Iran and to strengthen ongoing sectoral co-operation and assistance to Iran. That would include financial assistance through development corporation or partnership instruments, and encouraging the UK to explore the possibility of one-off bank transfers to Iran’s central bank, which would allow Iranian authorities to receive oil-related revenues.

I suppose this is all right—I do not really understand very much of this; it is way above my head—but when the Minister responds perhaps she could explain exactly how that meshes with our current policy towards Iran, which I understand is not as sympathetic or supportive as might be suggested by the rather large cash transfer opportunities which were being discussed.

This statutory instrument follows on from activities that have been going on in Europe for a number of years in relation not just to Cuba but to the other countries that were mentioned. It requires companies to notify the Commission within 30 days whenever renewed US extraterritorial sanctions directly or indirectly affect the economic or financial interests of the company in question. Various other things apply. EU companies can recover damages in EU courts from persons causing damage as a result of the sanctions, and it nullifies the effect of any court judgments or decisions of administrative bodies that are based on the reinstated US sanctions. My question here is: has anything happened in that regard? Do we have details on the number of companies that have notified the Commission within 30 days, as required? How much money has been recovered, and how many times have the courts been subject to recovery requests? I am sure that it will not affect the way in which we respond to the SI, but it would be interesting to have on the record whether this has been an active process or one that is more observed in the absence of activity than in the reality.

My attention was drawn to a quote from what is in some senses a rather unusual source, since I do not often quote this person. The UK Foreign Secretary at the time that this instrument was brought in, Boris Johnson, said that he thought it was rather difficult to protect European businesses due to the extraterritorial effect of US sanctions and the difficulties companies have when they touch the live wire of the American financial network—they find themselves sanctioned almost immediately. So my third request for more information is to ask whether the former Foreign Secretary is right that this has been rather difficult for companies to access and use.

I suppose I am leading to this question: what rationale do the Government give for continuing this transfer? It would clearly be inappropriate to have a situation in which an EU regulation had legal effect in the UK when we had not properly transferred it. If the ends do not justify the means, I am rather surprised that the Government are taking this step forward, so could the Minister reassure me when she comes to respond that this is a necessary instrument, that it fits with our current foreign policy operations and thoughts and that there is no concern in that respect?

[Baroness Fairhead]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

[Baroness Fairhead]

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

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

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

That leads me to my final point. It is a depressing reality of leaving the European Union that the Government are indicating that we will remove ourselves from a network of 27 other nations, in which we have effectively led debates about the regulation of dual-use weaponry for our defence. The European Union will have a list of technologies and we may well have a stand-alone list. We will leave a network with a unified system of processes for the determination of the capability of those systems, and we will have a stand-alone process. We will leave an integrated licensing system, and we will have to devise our own. Those three areas show the potential weakness of the United Kingdom compared to being part of a unified bloc. The reality is that we will have to be part of that bloc, aligned with it or distinctly separate from it. Since the Government have indicated that they wish to have a treaty on security and defence, it is fairly obvious to me that as soon as we leave the European Union we will be negotiating to realign ourselves with the three systems we will be leaving. It is a rather depressing scenario for our defence, but it is perhaps symptomatic of the process that is under way in leaving the European Union. If the Minister is able to clarify those points, I will be most grateful.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Fairhead]

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

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

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Fairhead]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trade Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I would also like to thank the Minister for introducing this amendment and the following one—Amendment 2 —which she also spoke to. That amendment combines the thinking from Report stage Amendments 3 and 4 with further discussions that the Minister alluded to, which took place offline. These discussions have led to a broader understanding, reflected in the debate today, that it is worth having a clear and unambiguous statement in the Bill about our current standards for activities including,

“the protection of human, animal or plant life or health … animal welfare … environmental protection … employment and labour”,

and—to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—ensuring no regression can occur as result of trade deals which are being rolled forward. The lead name on this amendment is the government Minister’s, and she has been joined by the Green, Labour and Conservative parties in that. This suggests that we have struck a feeling in the House that needs to be reflected in the wording.

Having said that, there is an amendment in my name, which I would like to raise for discussion although I will not press it, and there is an amendment on food safety in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which has already been referred to. That points to three things that I would like to get on the record.

In working through how to address the non-regression of standards in trade conversion, the officials—with whom we had good and robust discussions—pointed out very strongly not only the need to ensure that the list provided in the final legislation was rooted in statute and justiciable but that it would fit with the WTO regulations, to which it was being addressed at least in part. The wording before us would perhaps not normally be expected in this House, given the argument being made here that good standards already exist and should not be diluted; that better ones should be adopted in some cases, if they exist; and that we should look forward to an increase in the quality provided through this system. It meets the difficulty that words such as “standards” are apparently not admissible in the way we were trying to use them, and, as I have said, the WTO language is somewhat different.

Having said that, the reason for having the amendment on human rights—which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has joined and spoke to earlier—was simply that, if the argument is made that statutory protections require or can benefit from a statement allowing that to be seen very clearly on the front of the Bill, why does that not apply to human rights? With food safety, one can never be more vigilant than we already are. None the less, we should make sure that it is available for future reference that this matter was considered and thought to be so important that it was part of that arrangement. I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to both of those points when she comes to them. As I have said, we will not be pressing this amendment.

I think this is a good day for the issues that people such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and 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.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to add to what the noble Lord has said on human rights. I thank him for bringing forward the amendment specifically to add human rights, but I am satisfied with his decision not to move it. The powers conferred on Ministers under Clause 2 would not, as I understand it, permit Ministers to act in breach of the Human Rights Act—primary legislation—in any event. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm that understanding. It would also be inappropriate to include human rights in the main amendment because many pieces of legislation do not expressly refer to human rights. This is because we have primary legislation, which has a particular force. Therefore, including human rights in the amendment to Clause 2 might possibly cast doubt in those other areas.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

7: Clause 11, leave out Clause 11 and insert the following new Clause—
“UK participation in EU and EEA organisations
(1) The Secretary of State must seek to negotiate an international trade agreement with the EU which will enable the United Kingdom to continue, after exit day, to co-operate closely with the bodies listed in subsection (2).(2) The bodies are— (a) the European Medicines Agency;(b) the European Chemicals Agency; (c) the European Aviation Safety Agency;(d) the European Maritime Safety Agency;(e) the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity;(f) the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

[Baroness Fairhead]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

Amendment 7 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

8: After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
“Convention about Ministers of the Crown legislating on devolved matters
(1) Regulations made under section 1(1) by a Minister of the Crown may not normally make provision which would be within the devolved competence of a devolved authority unless—(a) so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 7 of Schedule 2), the Scottish Ministers consent, or(b) so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 8 of Schedule 2), the Welsh Ministers consent, or(c) so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of a Northern Ireland department (within the meaning given in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2), the Northern Ireland department has given consent.(2) Regulations made under section 2(1) by a Minister of the Crown may not normally make provision which would be within the devolved competence of a devolved authority unless— (a) so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 7 of Schedule 2), the Scottish Ministers consent, or(b) so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 8 of Schedule 2), the Welsh Ministers consent, or(c) so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of a Northern Ireland department (within the meaning given in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2), the Northern Ireland department has given consent.”

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Rogan) (UUP)]

After Clause 13, Amendment 8, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Bara—

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

It is Balmacara. It means “the town from which the Macraes come”—Macrae being my mother’s maiden name. I thought the House might enjoy that little moment of clarity.

Amendment 8 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, comes from a concern that the regulatory power-making in the Bill as originally drafted would cause difficulties for the relationships that should exist between the UK Parliament and the devolved Administrations. There have been two developments since the original amendment went down. First, the continuing debate on a series of matters involving trade issues to be brought back to the devolved Administrations has yet to be resolved in discussions between the UK Ministers and devolved Administration Ministers. Also, the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, which recently went through your Lordships’ House, was subject to an amendment that seemed to suggest that there was a requirement in most of the legislation coming forward, particularly this Bill, to reflect how, and on what basis, Ministers of the UK Parliament could engage with the devolved Administrations over how regulations should be framed and consulted on, and under what conditions consent would be given.

Since this seemed to involve a number of different issues, not just those related to trade, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, kindly held a meeting at which we were able to discuss this in more detail, attended by myself, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I think we got a long way on that issue in trying to understand how these various matters came together. I think the broad position that affects all these issues is set out in the Scotland Act 2016 and in comparable primary legislation affecting Wales and Northern Ireland.

In respect of the possibility of having a convention that would echo that relating to regulations that will need to be made under the powers given under primary legislation, I think the noble Lord has something to say that will be helpful in resolving whether Amendment 8 is required. I beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, I was interested to hear the clarification of the title of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The House will not be interested, but my title of “Tweed” is because of the river, not because I have a penchant for tweed suits outside this place, which most colleagues from England assume is the case. However, because my title is from the Tweed, because I am from the border and live on the border, and because I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Borders, the legislative competence interaction on trade agreements is of significance, not just for Borderers but for the relationship with the devolved Administrations. I am therefore very happy to add my name to this amendment.

In so doing, I also recognise the patience of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, in meeting us and hearing our case for the need for an extra level of clarification on the interaction of the areas where discussions continue with the devolved Administrations. In some areas, there is disagreement over where the legislative competences of areas that had been EU areas of legislation will lie, when they are repatriated, if we leave the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, the Scotland Act’s approach to devolution is that if those powers are not spelled out in the Act’s reservations, they are recognised as fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This is about how the order-making powers in the Bill interact with those powers. Clarity on the areas of interaction between the devolved competences would be helpful.

Finally, clarity would be helpful in looking at those areas of legislative competence where there are ongoing discussions: agricultural support, organic farming, animal health and traceability, animal welfare, chemical regulations, state aid and food labelling. All are likely to be important not just for continuity agreements but for future trade agreements. Some of these issues are politically sensitive, so getting the required clarity on how they will be legislated for in trade agreements is important. It would be regrettable if the competences ended up in the Supreme Court for dispute; further clarification on current interaction is desirable. I know that the Minister will probably not be able to answer my questions entirely but I look forward to his response to this short debate. I hope he can add an extra level of clarification, which would be satisfactory at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The word “consultation” is well known and well respected. I would like to pick up on what the noble Lord said earlier about the fact that there is much interaction, and consultation, going on; and it generally works very well. I would also like to say how well it has worked in respect of Wales. It is a term that is well recognised and works well.

Turning back to Section 12, I am aware of the letter from the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary, Mike Russell, which noble Lords have referred to in earlier exchanges and which raises a specific concern in the third paragraph about the effect of Section 12 regulations on the Scottish Government’s ability to exercise powers in the Trade Bill. I am disappointed that, unlike the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government have not seen fit to recommend consent to the Trade Bill. I would like to make it clear that any frameworks-related restrictions on the devolved Administrations’ use of the powers apply only if a Section 12 regulation is first in place.

Due to the collaborative and constructive work that is taking place to establish UK common frameworks once we leave the EU, the UK Government have not yet identified a need to bring forward any Section 12 regulations. The Government have committed to work with the devolved Administrations in the preparation of any Section 12 regulations that would maintain existing frameworks. This was set out in the Inter-governmental Agreement on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the Establishment of Common Frameworks, which ensures that those regulations are subject to scrutiny by the devolved legislatures and the UK Parliament.

In addition, I can reassure your Lordships that, were a Section 12 regulation in place that would restrict the power of the devolved Administrations to use Clauses 1 and 2, the Government’s commitment always to consult would remain. As we have repeatedly said, the UK Government remain committed to the principle of not legislating in devolved areas without seeking the agreement of the respective devolved Administrations. The UK Government have been working productively and collaboratively with the devolved Administrations on a number of fronts, including the development of common frameworks. As a result of this work, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations recently agreed to this joint statement:

“On the basis of the significant joint progress on future frameworks, and the continued collaboration to ensure the statute book is ready for exit day, the UK Government has concluded that it does not need to bring forward any section 12 regulations at this juncture.


On this basis, the Scottish and Welsh Governments continue to commit to not diverging in ways that would cut across future frameworks, where it has been agreed they are necessary or where discussions continue.


UK Government officials are working with devolved administration officials to revise the Common Frameworks analysis and take into account progress on framework areas since March 2018. We anticipate publishing a further iteration of this analysis shortly”.


To conclude, I hope that I have demonstrated that the amendment is unnecessary. The Government are committed to not normally using the powers in the Trade Bill to legislate in areas of devolved competence without the consent of the relevant devolved Administration—and certainly not without first consulting them. I believe that this is proportionate and appropriate to the powers as they currently stand, which have received consent from the National Assembly for Wales, as I said earlier. If passed, this amendment would depart significantly from this. I therefore ask that Amendment 8 be withdrawn.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his words and for being so explicit about the conditions under which powers can be exercised and how they would be affected, both by the current legislative framework and by Amendment 8 if it were inserted into the Bill. Having said that, however, your Lordships’ House has heard from the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Wigley, that these are matters of substantial importance in general terms, and particularly when viewed from the perspective of the devolved Administrations.

I hope that behind the words issued today there is a real and deep commitment across the whole of government to make sure that the lessons from the unfortunate experiences in the withdrawal Bill, now Act, and not repeated in this legislation—but obviously touching on it—will be learned in a way that will mean that we can make progress together. In that context, the Government getting their act together and issuing another statement about these matters as early as possible would be a considerable help to all concerned.

However, the point is well made that there is a well thought-through argument in the Bill, which bears exactly on the issues that the amendment sought to arrange. The commitment given openly by the Minister at the Dispatch Box, confirming that it is the Government’s intention to ensure that full, meaningful consultation should be the mode adopted and that there would always be a requirement to obtain consent where possible from the devolved Administrations, makes it very clear that the amendment is not required. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, at this awards ceremony I am delighted to be nominated for best supporting actor. I, too, thank the Members of the Government Front Bench for their patience and their willingness to engage. The Minister said this was the first Bill she has taken through. This is the first time I have been on a Bill’s scrutiny team, although I have had the privilege of taking through a Private Member’s Bill.

The Minister and I now know more about World Trade Organization terminology than we ever wanted to know. We hope it will become useful in the future. The Bill arrived in this House eight months ago. It started its considerations 15 months ago and the Trade Bill 2017 is now the Trade Bill 2017-19. That demonstrates that it has been a long process. The Minister said in her speech at Second Reading on 11 September that this was merely,

“fundamentally a pragmatic and, in most parts, a technical Bill”.—[Official Report, 11/9/18; col. 2204.]

We have had to scrutinise many technicalities and the Minister has been pragmatic in the way she has responded. She also said that the Bill was about continuity and certainty. These two things have been lacking on Brexit over the last months. On this Bill we have been unaccustomed to having such a large attendance in the House as there is now; given the next Statement on Brexit preparedness, I am sure it is in the context of this Bill having to be in place to provide some of that preparedness.

In thanking the Government Front Bench, and having worked closely on a cross-party basis with the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Stevenson, and others, I should also mention that I have had the stalwart support of my noble friends Lady Kramer and Lord Fox, and the unsung heroes of our Benches, Andrew Burrell and Elizabeth Plummer.

This is now a better Bill having gone through this House. We sought to enhance parliamentary power in setting the negotiating objectives and a mandate, and that is now in the Bill. We sought that consultations with the devolved Administrations would be enhanced, and that is now in the Bill. We said that there should be parliamentary approval of these continuity and ongoing agreements, and that is now in the Bill. Participating in a customs union is now in the Bill. A mobility framework for the movement of people is now in the Bill. Non-regression of standards—important across different areas from animal welfare to food standards—is now in the Bill.

The Minister said that this was a rewarding, constructive and challenging experience for her. In many regards she has met that challenge and I commend her for it. She has certainly been constructive in how she has engaged with us. The rewarding aspect will be how she can persuade her colleagues at the other end of this building to ensure that all the wise amendments that this House has passed are not overturned. We will have to see how she does on that business. If she does it, I commend her for it.

Trade Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend, who speaks with great authority on this issue. In following him, I will use one example to highlight the importance of this amendment in maintaining the spirit and including the contents of the agreement. I use the example of today’s announcements on the proposed tariffs that may be applied on a no-deal Brexit and the Written Ministerial Statement on how that will impact on the Northern Ireland border, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I was grateful for an opportunity to have a conversation with the Minister about this today.

The proposals for the tariff regime, which would be an increase of 489 tariff lines on goods from the European Union and would have to have some form of mechanism across the border of Northern Ireland, need to be seen in the context of operating within a year. This is not simply an emergency or temporary proposal, and a year is a long time in the context of some of the statistics referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. There were 46 million vehicle crossings at the 15 Northern Ireland border locations in the last year, according to the Northern Ireland statistics agency—3.8 million of those were goods vehicles, nearly three-quarters of deliveries involve small businesses, and two thirds of cross-border trade is bilateral agri-food and intermediate trade. That means these are small businesses—as already referred to, 80% are low-value—and often individual businesses trading on a self-employed basis, but every one of those people will have to be registered with an economic operator’s index number, or EORI. Only one-sixth of all businesses have so far registered, so the system, even as published today, is not operable, but new processes and procedures have to be carried out. The Government are giving no advice to Northern Ireland businesses on that. They believe a unilateral action, against the spirit of the Good Friday agreement and the spirit of an all-island economy, is the way forward.

How can it be a unilateral approach if tariffs will not be applied to goods coming from Ireland, but will subsequently be applied if those goods are part of intermediate trade with Great Britain? Liz Truss, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was asked at lunchtime where the checks would be carried out. She said that she believed it would be at “a border in the UK”. This is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury today. What does that mean? If one is tolerant, one may forgive her not knowing the terminology of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, but that is unforgivable, given that she said she will vote for a no-deal Brexit in the other place this evening. What kind of consultation is being carried out, not just with the Irish Government—which, as my noble friend indicated, is urgent—but with businesses on both sides of the border that will be operating?

Linked with the long-term basis is the fact that the unilateral approach is not WTO-compliant, unless the Government trigger one element in WTO processes on public morals. There are some dispensations that can be provided, in extremis, on the basis of public morals that can set aside a system where we will not apply tariffs from one country, if we have no intention of applying them to the rest of the world. It would be a retrograde step if the Government activated a public morals clause at the WTO on a situation as delicate as that on the Northern Ireland border. The Government are setting aside security and border integrity as the basis of the unilateral no-deal proposal. The Government should see sense and support this amendment, because it provides the framework for these consultations to be carried out.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a short but poignant and moving debate. We have reached back into history and tried to articulate fears and concerns.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

If the noble Lord would allow me, I entirely agree with the difficulties associated with the border, and the need for a soft border, but I am not sure that this amendment achieves that. It would not directly affect the no-deal situation at all. It describes what I regard as a soft border; it is what I would like to see and what the Prime Minister’s deal, with the backstop and so on, is intended to do. But we are now dealing with a different situation. I would love to see a secure, soft border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, but I am not at all sure that the amendment secures that in any way whatever, although I would be glad to have help on that. It would not be as a result of an agreement between the European Union and the UK if there was no deal; no deal is the very opposite of an agreement between the EU and UK.

The other problem is that Ireland’s relationships with countries no longer in the EU would be regulated by the EU. I should be glad of some explanation from the people who know all about this of exactly how the amendment achieves the result I and they wish to achieve.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, that is a well-made point. It is probably better if the mover of the amendment, my noble friend Lord Hain, responds to it in detail, but I think the wording is clear. Indeed, as my noble friend said, this takes us beyond the no-deal exit problem because it is for the future. It is meant to govern future arrangements across the border between the UK and Ireland. My noble friend might have more detail on it. I do not think the noble and learned Lord’s point destroys the arguments that have been made. I understand where he is coming from, but the issues we are talking about are for all time. They are important to build on our history and practice up to this point.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, spoke very powerfully, getting across the idea that if there is an opportunity for this House and, indeed, any other place to strengthen the spirit of the Belfast agreement, it should be supported. This is an opportunity to do so. He said that it was about not just the history, but the future of those who work and operate in Northern Ireland and Ireland, and about trade and opportunities. The combination of peace and prosperity, which, after all, is what we all seek at all times, surely is not something the Conservative and Unionist Government will really whip their members to vote against. I hope the Government will be able to accept the amendment and allow us to move forward.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short but very profound debate. In particular I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for moving the amendment. I think the whole House recognises the important role he played while Secretary of State to help that process gather ground into fruition. It has been a proud part of successive Governments that we cherish and nurture that hard-won peace. It is why we said right at the outset in the future relationship White Paper that the prime objective would be that,

“the UK and the EU meet their commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland through the overall future relationship: preserving the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK; honouring the letter and the spirit of the Belfast (‘Good Friday’) Agreement; and ensuring that the operational legal text the UK will agree with the EU on the ‘backstop’ solution as part of the Withdrawal Agreement will not have to be used”.

That was very much at the heart of our objective. We are absolutely committed to the Good Friday agreement and that part of it.

I do not take the point the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, made about division out of context, but I am sure he would recognise that the whole thrust of the Government’s and the Prime Minister’s negotiations, and what the withdrawal agreement is about, is seeking to secure the type of border arrangements that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay referred to and that the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Alderdice, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and others seek to work towards. Peace on the island of Ireland between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and the Good Friday agreement—the partnership between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in this context—surely must be the red line above all red lines that we need to preserve.

That is why there is the amendment in the EU withdrawal Act making that explicit, which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was instrumental in securing. That has been a key part of what Her Majesty’s Government have done when engaging in negotiations on these matters, which was brought to fruition in the withdrawal agreement. Were the withdrawal agreement passed yesterday in another place, we would not need this amendment or this discussion. These are matters for the extremely unwelcome event of no deal.

Some specific points have been raised, which I will try to address. I hope that will help noble Lords in deciding what to do with this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that this has been emerging over 12 months—an increase of 480 in the current position with the EU. The Government have had to find a way of ensuring that there is no border, from the UK perspective, in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. Any checks that must be carried out for non-revenue purposes will be done away from the border. HMRC is very familiar with carrying out such checks on that basis.

My noble friend Lady Altmann asked how the plan works to supply work with suppliers. These are unilateral measures—they are not for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, which would be subject to the EU’s common external tariff and single market rules. The only way to avoid a hard border is to commit to entering into discussions with the European Commission jointly to agree long-term measures to avoid one.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked whether there will be a border in the UK. The Government do not intend to construct infrastructure at the Northern Ireland land border. We will also not carry out any new checks on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. HMRC will assess the risks and take a risk-based approach to investigating allegations of breaches of those rules. The noble Lord also asked about the status in terms of the WTO—whether it breaches the MFN model. We are confident that the policy is in line with our WTO obligations, taking into account the unique set of social, political and economic circumstances of Northern Ireland. In developing our policy alongside WTO rules, we have also had to take into consideration a broader set of our international obligations, including those under the Good Friday agreement. Furthermore, as we have set out, these arrangements are strictly temporary. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked us the meaning of “temporary” in this respect; it is a period up to 12 months.

I will come to the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, because it is material to what we have been discussing today. He made the important observation that the amendment as worded seeks an agreement between the UK and the Government of Ireland. Of course, because the Irish border is, as he rightly said, a border between the United Kingdom and the European Union, it would need an agreement with the EU. I think that is the point my noble and learned friend was making. In that context, the way in which the amendment is currently worded would be unlawful because it refers to the Government of Ireland as opposed to the EU.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, said that this amendment does not put the Government in a straitjacket. It would seek to limit flexibility—no “facilitations”, for example, would rule out future technologies, which is something the EU has specifically agree to look at as a priority once the withdrawal agreement has been agreed. In terms of EU imports into Northern Ireland, not across the land border, the answer to the question of whether tariffs apply is yes. The waiver applies only to goods moving from Ireland to Northern Ireland. This is a temporary measure that would need to be implemented.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about potential arbitraging in terms of pricing. Many things affect the price of cars, in terms of tax and currencies, and an individual car from Dublin, driven across to Belfast, would be exempt from the 10% tariff. It would not necessarily be cheaper, but these measures would be temporary. Surely this breaks most favoured nations status, which I have addressed.

I hope that noble Lords will feel that I have addressed a number of the points that were raised. I thank all noble Lords for raising these matters and assure them once again that this has been absolutely up front and central, at the heart of the Government’s strategy to preserve that hard-won peace and that special relationship. This is something that needs to be there only in the event of no deal, which we are all working tirelessly to avoid. I invite the noble Lord to address the point on the wording regarding the Government of Ireland and the European Union, which, on our reading, means that if the amendment were passed, it would be unlawful. If he could address that specifically, I am sure that it would be helpful to all noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, at the heart of this amendment is a concern that the necessary steps are taken to support trade involving the use of services, which increasingly spreads across not just performance, art or culture but work in making cars, machinery and so on, of which it is an integral part. The expertise and knowledge that goes with that involves people and we need to accompany the work they are doing in a way which allows it to function properly. If they are prevented from moving, we as a society will suffer. In addition to the well-made points from the Cross Benches on the artistic and cultural level, at a purely practical level, we need arrangements for the new technologies which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred to, which will be unable to work if we do not have the services to make them do so. I wish him well with his iPad when it collapses and he cannot get the people to service it because they are unable to travel.

More seriously, the fourth pillar of the GATT treaty, of which we are a member through the EU, and would be a member if we come out of the EU, requires countries such as the UK—it we were independent—to make sure that services are delivered in ways which include the ability to provide rights for working, living and studying. Although studying does not necessarily seem to apply to the right to work and live, it is a very important aspect for us in Britain because one of our biggest export earners is our educational services. If we prevent people travelling to provide the facilities which allow studying and the ability to pass on knowledge—as we would be, if we do not have a proper arrangement for that—we will suffer enormously as a result.

Last night, I was at a meeting involving universities, organised by the Industry and Parliament Trust. There was a palpable concern felt by all the academics present about: the inability to engage with Erasmus and Erasmus+; the possibility that the Horizon 2020 funds will not be available; the lack of technical support for research activity, because the salary level grades were too high; and the inability to attract good postgraduate students to provide the intermediate work in research teams, and to teach. They felt that this was going to mean considerable changes in our university systems. This is the implication if we do not have a mobility framework of the type described in this amendment, which I support.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for moving this amendment. Before I respond, I should declare an interest, in that my wife came to this country from outside the EU and has contributed over the last 30 years by building a business, and in other ways. Therefore, I have no problem with recognising, as I was invited to do, the tremendous contributions to this country made by people who come to make this place their home. In the same spirit, I recognise the contribution that our European friends have made to this country, in many of the areas referenced already.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

24A: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“UK participation in EU and EEA organisations
(1) The Secretary of State must seek to negotiate an international trade agreement with the EU which will enable the United Kingdom to continue, after exit day, to co-operate closely with the bodies listed in subsection (2).(2) The bodies are—(a) the European Medicines Agency;(b) the European Chemicals Agency;(c) the European Aviation Safety Agency;(d) the European Maritime Safety Agency;(e) the European Network of Transmission System Operators;(f) the European Food Safety Authority;(g) the European Union Intellectual Property Office.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, those with keen eyesight will have noticed that this is an amended version of an earlier amendment which was tabled in Committee. It reflects the fact that we have been in discussions with the Government on how best to frame an important issue, which is that a duty and obligation should be placed on the Secretary of State in this case and on the Government more generally to ensure that, if we are in a situation where we are negotiating international trade agreements with the EU—in other words, we are not in a no-deal, crash-out situation—the United Kingdom should try to co-operate as closely as possible with the bodies set out in the list.

In moving Amendment 24A, I draw the attention of noble Lords to Amendment 25A which I regard as consequential since it seeks to remove the clause that Amendment 24A is intended to replace.

We can trace the thinking about this back to an amendment moved in the other place at the time the Bill was being considered on Report in the Commons. That amendment inserted into the Bill a requirement that the Secretary of State or an appropriate authority to negotiate an international trade agreement with the EU that includes working closely with the European Medicines Agency, but it stopped at that point. That raises in my mind—and I am sure in others’—why other agencies and bodies of equal importance across a range of issues should not also be the subject of close negotiation. I therefore thought that it would be appropriate to bring forward an amendment at this stage which tries to list some of them.

I noticed that, in the Chequers statement and the White Paper that followed it, there was in fact a much longer list of bodies which were thought to be appropriate in any future negotiated international trade agreement with the EU. They did not appear in my original list, but they could well be considered. I also discovered that the CBI was keen to draw the Government’s attention to its view that the future relationship with the EU would suffer tremendously if a considerable effort was not made to approach bodies such as the European Medicines Agency and then including the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Maritime Safety Agency and the European Network of Transmission System Operators in the same manner. The version before noble Lords perhaps still does not catch the full attention of the Government, but I hope that, when the Minister responds, he might suggest that we work further on this to make sure that we have reached an agreed position before we get to Third Reading. If so, I would be happy to work with the Government on that.

The Minister will probably raise the question why paragraphs (f) and (g), covering the European Food Safety Authority and the European Union Intellectual Property Office, are on my list whereas they perhaps would not meet the criteria that are going to be raised by the Government. I would be interested to hear his arguments on this, because many Members of your Lordships’ House would think that the European Food Safety Authority meets all the criteria of the others in the list. Moreover, if we are to make a future of our economy in the new modern world, we are certainly going to need to work closely with the European Union Intellectual Property Office, which has a high reputation for all the work that is involved in trying to regulate and bring forward arrangements for new technologies. I beg to move.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for presenting his amendment, and I particularly thank him for the way that he has engaged with officials and with my noble friend Lady Fairhead on this important issue. I can cut to the chase and say that we are probably not going to be that far apart, but let me put some remarks on the record in the hope that we can agree to keep working on this between now and Third Reading.

Ministers from across Government have carried out an extensive engagement on EU exit with businesses, industry bodies and civil society organisations from all sectors of the economy and all regions of the UK. The Secretaries of State at DExEU and BEIS and the Chancellor of the Exchequer co-chair the EU Exit Business Advisory Group to ensure that business is not only heard but is influential throughout the negotiations. The group involves the director-generals and directors of the CBI, IoD, EEF, BCC and FSB. The meetings take place regularly and are included in transparency returns. Since July 2016, DExEU Ministers alone have organised and attended more than 500 engagements with business and civil society stakeholders from every sector of the British economy.

For goods, the UK and the EU want to be as ambitious as possible. As part of this, both parties have agreed to explore the possibility of UK co-operation with EU agencies such as the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Medicines Agency. In addition, the political declaration sets out that the UK will seek to co-operate with the European Maritime Safety Agency and the European Network of Transmission System Operators. As a specific example of this suggested co-operation in the interests of tackling shared safety and security issues, we will continue to co-operate with the European Maritime Safety Agency, including on exchange of information between the agency and the United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

Let me turn now to the core issue that remains between us, which is the position of the EU Intellectual Property Office. The Government are working to find the best arrangement for the UK regarding EU agencies and bodies, but the decision to seek co-operation with an EU agency or body must be made carefully, bearing in mind the context of the UK’s overall aims for the future relationship and negotiations with the EU. As we negotiate our future relationship with the EU, the Government are determined to agree ambitious provisions to help businesses protect their intellectual property rights. Indeed, in the political declaration the UK and the EU commit to establishing,

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

In this regard, the UK would seek an appropriate level of co-operation with the EU and other relevant agencies such as the EU IPO. What we can achieve will be subject to the negotiations. However, since intellectual property is a wide-ranging and dynamic area of law, it would be unwise to stipulate in UK law exactly how we want to co-operate with the EU in this given area, as this could have wider implications for the balance of rights and obligations in the future partnership.

Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that trademarks and registered designs are granted on a non-discriminatory basis. That means that, in all circumstances, British businesses will continue to be able to use the EU Intellectual Property Office to protect their trademarks and designs in the EU. The Government want to emphasise that we seek to be ambitious and to obtain the best result possible in the negotiations with the EU on intellectual property. However, as it stands, the amendment would be unhelpful in that it would bind the UK to a particular negotiating approach. The negotiation objectives are complex, and there are vitally important questions which must be weighed in their own right.

In accordance with the commitments made by the Prime Minister, Parliament will have a greater and more formal role in the development of the mandate for the next phase of the negotiations. The Government are more than sympathetic both to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and to those of businesses. A thorough engagement with stakeholders and the EU has led the UK to saying that it will seek co-operation with five bodies that I mentioned earlier. This work requires thorough and weighted consideration of how active participation in an agency delivers wider negotiation goals in the context of any associated costs and disbenefits.

I thank the noble Lord for his constructive approach to engagement on this. I believe that we are not far apart from each other, particularly in the light of the progress that we have made to date. As a consequence, I can confirm, as has been the case throughout the process, that I and the lead Minister, my noble friend Lady Fairhead, will be happy to have further discussions to see whether we can reach a mutually acceptable agreement. We will therefore return to this matter at Third Reading. On that basis, I would ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considerate words and for dealing in detail with some of the issues that I raised in my opening statement. With his agreement, we will see whether we can work further over the next few days to get a common agreement on a wording that can be brought back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I rise as batsman No. 3 today. This group covers Amendments 27, 28, 29, 30 and 36 to 58. I will speak to Government Amendments 27, 29, 30 and 36 to 58 which are minor, technical amendments. I will then respond to amendment 28 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and Lord Purvis of Tweed, after they have spoken to their amendment.

To avoid the unnecessary duplication of a provision already in place by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, Amendment 27 removes Clause 7(2). Clause 7(2) allows for devolved Administrations to make regulations under section 1(1) or 2(1) of the Trade Bill before exit day provided that those regulations do not come into effect until exit day. This is already provided for by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which applies this principle to all Bills passed after the Act in the same Session of Parliament. There will be no change to policy with the removal of Clause 7(2); it merely removes an unnecessary and duplicative provision.

For the Bill to work in the way that is intended, the definition of subordinate legislation must include Acts passed in devolved legislatures as well as in the UK Parliament. This is possible by changing the definition of subordinate legislation from that used in the Interpretation Act 1978 to the more detailed one used in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. This is the purpose of Amendment 29 which ensures that, where possible, the provisions in the Bill respect the important role of the devolved Administrations.

Turning to Amendments 30 and 36, Clause 8(6) in Part 1 of the Bill sets out a list of definitions of terms found in the Bill, such as “devolved authority”. The amendments will move the definition of domestic law from Schedule 1, paragraph 2(7) to Clause 8(6), where it will sit alongside other definitions that relate to the devolved Administrations. This will make the Bill easier for people to follow.

Turning to Amendments 37 to 43 and 45 to 58, Schedule 1 to the Trade Bill allows joint procedure requirements that derive from outside the Trade Bill still to apply to regulations made under Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. By inserting the phrase “acting alone” to appropriate places in Schedules 1 and 2, as Amendments 37 to 43 and 45 to 58 seek to do, we are improving the quality of the legislation by clarifying when the devolved authorities are acting alone as opposed to acting jointly with the UK Government.

Amendment 44 ensures that paragraph 6(4) of Schedule 1 works as intended by applying consultation requirements that would otherwise bind Northern Ireland devolved authorities to regulations made under Clause 1(1) and 2(1). These changes are technical in order to tidy up the Bill, and as such I hope your Lordships will support them.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, it is a test of the abilities of Ministers to be able to breathe life into a list such as that we have just heard. This is a case of drafting amendments beyond the boredom threshold of many people who have to sit through these debates, and I congratulate the noble Viscount on his ability to do that well. I have no objection to the points that he has made and will support them enthusiastically when asked to do so.

In this group, which includes a lot of one-line amendments, is a large amendment dealing with the Sewel convention, which has operated for a number of years in relation to devolved matters in the Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—when they meet. It is there because there is concern that the Government have still not bottomed out their arrangements for how all such matters are to be dealt with going forward. While there is no complaint that the convention has not worked well until now, conventions are conventions and there is an argument, at least in principle, that at some point—either now or at some later stage—an attempt should be made to clarify the rules by which it operates and the conditions under which it exists.

I say that particularly because there remains a continuing concern over how the Government attempted to legislate in the withdrawal Bill, in particular on matters being devolved—as they may be under any agreement with the EU or if we crash out—to the UK but for which there was a strongly persuasive case for them going directly to the devolved Administrations. In those circumstances, a great deal of work has been done and a lot of the individual issues have been settled, one way or another. However, a list of matters relating to devolved issues still needs to be resolved so that where they intersect with other geographical locations, there is a workable scheme under which progress can be made.

One issue that arose previously was the extent to which the devolution legislation passed in this House to set up theses bodies could be invoked for issues concerning who has the authority to legislate where a matter is devolved. If a matter is not reserved under the Act, it is devolved, so matters that fall to be devolved must have the consent of the body to which the issue is devolved under the Sewel convention. I am putting this simply; the arrangement is more complex. In the case before us, with trade being such an important issue, we felt that there should be some measure in the Bill to explain exactly the conditions under which the convention would operate and the extent to which it would or would not be concerned. The amendment’s wording is quite clear:

“Regulations made … by a Minister of the Crown may not normally make provision which would be within the devolved competence of a devolved authority”,


unless the Ministers consent. It goes on to say that it would normally be within the devolved competences of the devolved authority, to which conditions are attached. That applies to all areas.

That would have been a very simple introduction to a very simple issue on which I would expect the Minister to respond. However, it will not have escaped the House’s attention that only yesterday, a very similar amendment to another Bill—the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill—was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, on behalf of the Government. It covered almost exactly the same territory. It was phrased positively, in a way that the amendment before the House today is not, but it covers the same ground. It said:

“Before making regulations … that contain provision which is within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant devolved authority on that provision”.


It goes on to explain the conditions under which that would operate. The wording is not identical but I would argue that the sensibilities and principles behind this matter are identical to those of that amendment. Does the Minister therefore recognise that, to the extent to which the Government have already considered this issue and legislated for it, it may be in the Government’s best interests to accept Amendment 28, since to do otherwise might cause difficulty for what has already been agreed to in the healthcare Bill? Alternatively, would he agree to meet me and other noble Lords to discuss this, so that we can come back at Third Reading with wording that is consistent with what will soon be in law via the healthcare Bill and appropriate for the Trade Bill?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 28, to which I have added my name. There is not much to add to the persuasive case made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I welcome the Minister, who is always assured at the crease even as the third batsman. His clarification on Ministers of the Crown acting jointly with devolved Ministers is helpful; Clause 2 has always been a bit of a puzzle for me when it comes to the joint working of the two sets of Ministers.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out, our discussions in Committee concerned the areas of interaction where either devolved and reserved competences align themselves clearly or there is dispute as to where they fall—that is, whether they fall fully in the devolved competences of the Welsh or Scottish Parliament, for example, or are reserved. When we discussed the withdrawal Act, the Government put forward all the different policy areas to be repatriated from European Union legislation. There were no issues with 49 of them. It was recognised that a common framework between the UK and the devolved Administrations was needed for 82 of them. The Government said that there was to be further discussion on 24 of them. In 12 areas, there was no agreement; the UK believed that they were reserved but the devolved Administrations, particularly the Scottish Parliament, believed that they fell fully within the devolved competences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

I return to the word “normally”, to which the Minister drew attention. I recognise that in its judgment in the Miller case, the Supreme Court made it quite difficult for anyone to take a case before the court based on the use of the word “normally”. Indeed, the convention itself is not justiciable. In a way, that shows the sense of the formula that is used in the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill because that does not use the word “normally”. It just states that the Secretary of State “must consult”. If one is asking for consent, a higher level of co-operation is a useful qualification. “Normally” requires consent. But consultation is a sine qua non of proper legislation where the devolved Administrations are concerned. I would have thought that the formula in the amendment would not give rise to the same concern, which is why I suggest that the Minister considers very carefully whether, in this Bill, it would not be appropriate to adopt the same provision.

I appreciate what the Minister says about the consent of the Welsh Assembly, but it is a matter of some concern: the Scottish Government are particularly sensitive in relation to these issues and it would be a pity to say to the Scottish Government that just because the Welsh have agreed the Scots should just accept the provisions. They are making their own arguments based on what they know is important to them. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will pay very close attention to the point made.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this has been a useful little debate and I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for raising all the points that he did and giving such a full response. But may I check with him that he said—it will be in Hansard—that he would be happy to have further discussions about the issue? I appeal to him and his good sense. Given that we are already in debate with him and his officials on a number of issues, this could with advantage be added to the list. It is not that we have any particular reason to want to bring it back in any aggressive form at Third Reading, but the issues raised are worth further discussion, particularly because the Government have chosen to legislate in the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill and that, irrespective of whether or not it has direct read-across to the Trade Bill, will have set a standard. We have to be careful that we are not either missing or exceeding that in a way that would be detrimental to any future discussions on trade.

I am willing not to press this amendment if we can be absolutely clear that there will be further discussions, because this point has not been fully resolved. But I give an undertaking that this is in no sense trying to make things difficult for the Government. It would be worth going a further round to get this right.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

As I said, I am very happy to be part of further discussions.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

A further meeting, principally with those who raised points in this debate, would satisfy us. I do not think that we are far apart on this, but if we can work out exactly what we want said in a way that would advance the chances of getting a better result for all concerned, that would be the right way forward.

Amendment 27 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

34: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Conditions of commencement
The provisions in Parts 1 to 3 of this Act may only come into force if—
(a) a withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, or(b) the House of Commons has passed a motion “That this House approves of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship”.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, when I first joined your Lordships’ House, I was given tutelage in the ways and proceedings of this House. Indeed, I had a watcher who held hands with me, as it were, right through my opening period. One of the first things he said to me was, “When you get a new Bill, look at the commencement clauses, because they tell you how serious the Government are about their intentions”. Hidden in the interstices of the commencement clauses there is often a very good clue about how things happen. Some of the powers in a Bill come into effect immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent. Quite a few do not, and for them usually various elements come forward under regulatory procedures which are sometimes difficult to guess but which are very important to follow through to their logical conclusion. Nine years ago that was seared on my brain as an important thing, and I have never had the opportunity to do anything about it until today. I am therefore delighted to bring forward my first amendment on a commencement clause—and what an amendment it is.

As we speak, Divisions are happening in another place that will bear to some extent on the future of this Bill in its entirety, because consideration is being given to the question of whether there will be no deal. We have anticipated some of the thinking on that by wondering whether it would be sensible to give regard to the question of whether this Bill in its entirety had a commencement at all in relation to whether the other place had actually resolved that measures that would be affected by the legislation contained in this Bill had been given satisfactory agreement by the House of Commons.

There are two parts to this. Either a withdrawal agreement and framework for the future relationship with the EU must have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons in a move by a Minister under Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, or the House of Commons must have passed a Motion that it approves of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement or a framework for a future relationship. These are quite tight and narrow constraints on the ability of this Bill to come into force. They are important because, in a sense, they tie the whole of the debates about our future relationship and trade in the widest context to the question of what exactly the Government intend for the future of the country in relation to the withdrawal Act.

The whole process can take effect only on the formal passing of a Motion or Motions by the House of Commons. This may not be the night on which such a Motion takes place. I understand that the amendments selected for discussion today do not fulfil the criterion set out in the withdrawal Act as being binding on the Government, although they will give us a clear view about where things will go. But we have been saying this for ages. Indeed, my credibility is shredded by the number of projections I have given to my family about what I thought was happening, all of which have turned out to be wrong. I am not proposing to go further tonight than simply saying that activity is happening that may have a bearing the future of this amendment. With that, I recommend to your Lordships’ House that we seriously consider this amendment. If necessary, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My name is on this amendment, which seems to be an extremely sensible one. I support what has just been said. I had no mentor when I came into this House, and I had no one to hold my hand, so, as will be obvious to all, I am lost, particularly on the details of commencement. But it seems to me that one of the virtues of this amendment is that it would rule out proceeding in the event of an accidental no deal. An accidental no deal is still a real possibility. But any form of no deal would be an act of self-harm, which I hope will be rejected very strongly in a very few minutes.

I was very sorry to see that some members of the Government were proposing to vote for self-harm, which is very odd. The doctrine of Cabinet responsibility seems to have fallen by the wayside on an issue as important as this, where it is impossible to have a government line which all the Cabinet would stick to. It seems to me that, since Sir Robert Walpole’s time, the defining characteristic of British Cabinet government is Cabinet responsibility shared by a group of friends who can command a majority in the House of Commons. It seems that both of these conditions are not met. I am not sure how relevant that point is to the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, so I will say merely that I support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similarly, the British Ceramic Confederation has stated:

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


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

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

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

35: Before Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule—
“COMMITTEE ON TRADE AGREEMENTSRecommendation in relation to ratification1_ The report under section (Parliamentary approval of trade agreements)(6) must include—(a) an account of the Committee’s consultation with—(i) each devolved authority,(ii) public bodies, businesses, consumer groups, trade unions and non-governmental organisations which, in the opinion of the Committee, have a relevant interest,(iii) the public, and(iv) equivalent bodies in the other signatory states;(b) an assessment of the qualitative and quantitative impact of the proposed trade agreement on—(i) the economy, broken down by the different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England,(ii) the environment,(iii) human rights standards,(iv) labour standards,(v) individuals with protected characteristics under section 4 of the Equalities Act 2010,in the United Kingdom;(c) an assessment of the qualitative and quantitative impact of the proposed trade agreement on—(i) the economy,(ii) the environment,(iii) human rights standards,(iv) labour standards,(v) individuals with protected characteristics under section 4 of the Equalities Act 2010,in any other state which is a proposed signatory to the agreement.2_ The report under subsection (6) of section (Parliamentary approval of trade agreements) must include an assessment of the extent to which the provisions of the proposed agreement conflict with, or are consistent with—(a) the provisions of international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom;(b) the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015; (c) the provisions of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights;(d) domestic human rights law;(e) international human rights law and international humanitarian law;(f) the United Kingdom’s obligations on workers’ rights and labour standards as established by the United Kingdom’s commitments under the International Labour Organisation’s fundamental conventions including but not limited to the Declaration on Fundamental Rights at Work;(g) obligations relating to animal sentience by which the United Kingdom is bound, or any principles relating to animal sentience to which the United Kingdom adheres, and any provision in domestic law (including retained EU law) relating to animal welfare standards and the welfare of animals in the production of food and the wider supply chain practice;(h) the principle of eliminating poverty;(i) the United Kingdom’s environmental obligations in international law;(j) the offences in section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour);(k) the sovereignty of Parliament;(l) the legal authority of UK courts;(m) the rule of law;(n) the principle of equality before the law.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be the back-marker on Report. Amendment 59 inserts text into the schedule that sets up the process for appointments to the Trade Remedies Authority, so that the chair can be appointed by the Secretary of State,

“following a report from the International Trade Committee of the House of Commons”.

In effect, this includes the chair of the Trade Remedies Authority in the list of appointments that are subject to pre-appointment scrutiny.

I do not do this lightly. There are about 1,000 senior public appointments, only 50 of which are subject to pre-appointment hearings by Select Committees. The Cabinet Office guidance on this was amended then reissued in January. Paragraph 8 sets out three criteria, the first of which says that such appointments should be for,

“posts which play a key role in regulation of actions by Government”.

This clearly must be satisfied as it determines one of the essential roles of the Department for International Trade in investigating and recommending trade remedies. Secondly, the appointments must be,

“posts which play a key role in protecting and safeguarding the public’s rights and interests in relation to the actions and decisions of Government”.

This instance may not be about the public, but certainly it ticks the box for the business community, which would regard the TRA as one of the most important bodies impacting on its interests in relation to the actions of the Government. Thirdly, the guidance says that appointments subject to pre-appointment hearings must be,

“posts in organisations that have a major impact on public life or the lives of the public where it is vital for the reputation and credibility of that organisation that the post holder acts, and is seen to act, independently of Ministers and the Government”.

Noble Lords will recall that, at a much earlier stage, we debated whether this body should be independent. The Government, having looked around the world, decided that the Trade Remedies Authority should be independent, and seen to be independent. We have three ticks in the box. This is clearly an important appointment; for the Department for International Trade, it must be regarded as the most important appointment. I do not know of any other posts that it is presently asked to scrutinise prior to appointment. This seems a perfectly reasonable way to proceed; nor does it constrain Ministers too far, as we have discovered. Ministers have to consult and liaise with Select Committees, respond to them and take account of what they have said, but they do not have to do what a Select Committee says and in quite a number of instances have not done so. Ministers can still make the appointments that they consider to be the right ones. I do not feel that I am holding the Government back from doing what they need to do. I am just encouraging them to include this appointment in that list. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I support the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and congratulate him on the succinctness with which he has made his point. I have been confused for some time as to why the department might resist this. He has made the points exactly as I would have done. This is a key role with a public-facing responsibility and will hold the Government to account on issues of great importance. Indeed, it is the only body that the DIT will have as a marker; it behoves the department to raise the TRA to the appropriate level so that it is seen to have the importance that the department claims for it. For these reasons, it is absolutely right that we have an established routine that the person selected by the Minister to be the chair of this body—we are not expecting the same to happen for the chief executive or more junior staff, just the chair—should be seen by the International Trade Committee. As he says, it is a courtesy in some senses because the Minister can still appoint should they wish to do so. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, Amendment 60 is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I also support Amendment 59.

The UK needs a strong and independent Trade Remedies Authority with a balanced membership to investigate alleged dumping and subsidy cases and to recommend remedies. Schedule 4 to the Trade Bill defines the membership of the TRA and its governance. As I have said before, and as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, emphasised in moving Amendment 59, while both Clause 10 and Schedule 4 make the independence of the TRA a clear objective, this does not sit entirely comfortably with the chair and the non-executives being appointed entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

The governance model of the Office for Students in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 seems to offer a good model for delivering both independence and balance, and this is the model that has been used in drafting this updated amendment. It would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of members having between them experience in a number of relevant areas, including UK manufacturing, trade unions, consumers, regional economic growth, regulatory systems and international trade disputes.

The Government have suggested that the TRA should be managed by trade remedies experts rather than by stakeholders with vested interests, in order to be independent. However, the chief executive designate has already told a Commons Select Committee that she is not a trade remedies expert. A properly balanced group of non-executive stakeholders, supported by expert executives, could be effective, independent and balanced. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will ensure the combination of independence and balanced and relevant expertise that this important body requires.

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

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for initiating this debate and agree with many of the points that he made—for example, publishing the agreements and those that they replace together. I also agree that there should be consultation wherever possible—for example, with the Scottish Parliament on the Faroe Islands.

Like my noble friend Lady Verma, I sit on the European Union Select Committee. We have been helping the scrutiny process in this House by reviewing the international agreements laid before Parliament in accordance with Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The EU Committee was asked to take on this task rather late in the day, and it has involved a commendable cross-party effort by the committee and its sub-committees. However, as has already been said by previous speakers, the main credit should go to the clerks and our expert advisers, who, frankly, have done a fabulous job, working long hours and diving into the wearying complexities of these agreements. As we have heard, we published our sixth report in this series today—HL Paper 315, for the enthusiastic.

I am not sure that I have the chutzpah to table a Motion on this issue myself when there is so much parliamentary business to progress. However, I take this opportunity to draw attention to our work on treaties and to mention the UK-Swiss trade agreement, on which we reported today. This example is “illustrative”, in the word of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I very much understand that my noble friend the Minister may not be able to comment on this agreement, although she is very good at pulling rabbits out of hats. Switzerland is the 10th largest trading partner for the UK. As a committee, we were disappointed that the Government, in bringing forward the UK-Swiss trade agreement for scrutiny, had not provided an explanation of the plans for future UK-Swiss services trade, which accounts for 52% of overall trade between the UK and Switzerland. Services are as important as goods to our economy. Given that they now represent nearly 85% of GDP, you might say that they are even more important to the wealth and success of our islands. I am sorry that the process gives them so little focus.

In the meantime, I support the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. I would like to see the three agreements before us passed without delay. I look forward to many further debates on the very important area of future trade agreements, which will potentially have big implications and lead to big changes to our country.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trade Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her efforts to meet the requirements of the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, who is unfortunately indisposed at the moment. I know that my noble friend keeps a beady eye on everything that goes on here, so she will have noticed the welcome given to her Motion, even though it was not quite so well received on the Government Benches at the time. Nevertheless, we are where we are and we have made some progress. It cannot have been easy for the Minister or the Government as a whole to get a White Paper prepared and laid in an atmosphere that is probably best not gone into and in the very short time available. It is a major achievement and we appreciate it. It is also clear that the Government’s thinking has progressed in recent weeks and we welcome much of the analysis set out in the White Paper.

As we all know, trade negotiations are complex and difficult. They should engage civil society and feed in the views of consumers, trade unions and companies. The negotiations require a proper and effective system, involving this Parliament and the devolved Administrations, in relation to the negotiating mandate, and feedback on the negotiations as they progress and the final agreements. We think that requires underpinning with a statutory framework so, in the absence of any government amendments covering these points on Report, and in view of the assertion in the White Paper that no legislation is needed to deliver the Government’s proposals, we have tabled an amendment setting out a possible scheme. It is on that basis that we are happy to agree with the Motion moved by the noble Baroness and proceed to Report.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, we welcome the Minister’s comments from the Dispatch Box. This is an occasion when parliamentary persistence has proved effective. We started this process when the Government had indicated that the Bill would be about only the existing continuity agreements and we made a very strong case, across all parts of the House, that it should also signal a direction of travel which, in many respects, would create precedent. It is on that basis that we on these Benches welcome the Command Paper that the Minister has published and her willingness to engage with and meet opposition parties and Members from across the House.

One reason this has been so important is that it has been a consistent practice of this Government, in relation to continuity trade agreements or starting discussions with countries about future trading relationships, to delude themselves that it will be easy, then deny that there is a problem when it is highlighted that they are difficult. Then they demur when frustrated officials leak information that allows us to glean the reality from the media. Then, unfortunately, on occasions, they deflect the problem, saying that is not their problem or responsibility; it is other countries that are not lifting the burden, or the European Union that is not being forthcoming with its position on a future relationship. We want to be in a position where we can put all that behind us and move on to a platform where we have much greater clarity as to what the trading relationships, and the role of Parliament and the devolved Administrations in their oversight and approval, will be. I welcome the Command Paper as the start of that.

To quote the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, from Question Time, this can be only the start of the process, and this is the platform on which we will seek to build. This is not the end. In that spirit, I hope the Government will be very favourable to Amendment 12 later today to ensure that that platform can be built on in the most constructive manner. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

As the noble Lord will know, we have engaged in a number of legislative standards across all the different aspects of the British economy. If they are not captured in proposed new paragraphs (a) to (g), which we believe to be comprehensive, and if there are some elements of the economy where legislative standards currently exist and we would consider them to be of equal status, there is a requirement for them to be protected. That is why these are baseline standards. If areas are excluded, they will be captured by “not limited to”. The list of standards is not necessarily designed to be open-ended; these are meant to be the existing legislative standards that are already on the statute book that we wish not to be impacted by any of the regulations that could be made through this legislation.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Fairhead]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

[Baroness Fairhead]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley]

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Amendment 9 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Amendment 9 follows our constructive discussions in Committee and outside the Chamber with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and his colleagues on the question of the trade preference scheme, typically referred to as the generalised scheme of preferences in the European Union context.

A generalised scheme of preferences or the trade preference scheme established by this country would be one intended to give unilateral access to our markets for the products of some of the least and less-developed economies, assisting in their economic progress.

In so far as we have been discussing continuity, the intention is for the United Kingdom to maintain some continuity between the European Union preference scheme and a future preference scheme in the United Kingdom. However, I want to talk about where there may be scope for differences. If noble Lords want to look at the measure, it can be found in Schedule 3 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. That is why the amendment amends that Act, not to interfere with its revenue-raising functions but in relation to the scrutiny to be applied to regulations to establish a trade preference scheme.

Under that Act, when the Government bring in a trade preference scheme, the first such regulations will be subject to an affirmative procedure. As I understand it, the scheme may be established in line with the existing European Union preference scheme. However, it will be helpful for me to raise a number of issues with the Minister to give him a chance to put the Government’s intentions on record—as he helpfully did on the last group—about the character of the regulations and the extent of detail to be provided.

First, when we looked at Schedule 3 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act, we found it very difficult to relate that directly to what is in the EU’s preference scheme. That is mostly because the EU’s preference scheme does not include those countries with which it has association agreements that effectively supersede and replace the unilateral preferences. They have entered into bilateral or multilateral arrangements.

Whereas “least-developed countries” corresponds directly and derives from a UN classification, the list of “other eligible developing countries” is referenced to a World Bank classification, “among other things”. It is not the same as the classification by the World Bank. In particular, it would be helpful if my noble friend would confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to follow the EU practice and to identify in that category a sub-category of “vulnerable developing countries”. I think the intention of the unilateral scheme of preferences is to support economic development in circumstances where they are not the poorest countries of the world but none the less have significant issues—often they are structural or governance issues—that require additional preferential support.

Secondly, can access to preferences be suspended or withdrawn, as Section 10 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act makes clear, in recognition of or in consequence of human rights abuses in those countries or in relation to United Nations sanctions? Will the regulations make that clear?

Thirdly, what is the situation where the availability of this unilateral system of preferences none the less gives rise to dumping? I remember way back in 1981 that I was responsible in the Department of Trade and Industry for the generalised scheme of preferences as it applied to chemical products. The dumping of petrochemicals produced in Middle Eastern countries illustrated this point: the fact that one is a developing country does not necessarily mean that one does not have the ability to have serious competitive issues with producers in this country.

Where preferences might lead to dumping, or to subsidy, or to an increase in imports that could give rise to injury to markets and producers in this country, will the Secretary of State under the regulations be required to ask the Trade Remedies Authority to investigate any such complaint? As is the case elsewhere in the Act, will the Secretary of State be required only to act and to implement remedies in so far as the Trade Remedies Authority itself determines that there is a need to act and in line with its recommended remedy? It is not clear in the 2018 Act that the Trade Remedies Authority is required to be used by the Secretary of State in relation to the preference scheme.

Will the first set of regulations make clear the overall structure of the preferences scheme? Will it also make clear the structure in relation to specific products from developing countries, which are not to have the unilateral nil duty of tariff but are to be treated as graduated products? This sometimes happens for reasons of relative competitiveness or due to the need to protect industries in this country—as might, for example, be the case with textile imports from India or Bangladesh. Will the availability of the preferences for those graduated products be specified in the regulations, so that the two Houses can look in detail at the way in which the preference scheme is to vary in relation to certain sectors and certain countries, which might give rise to differences between the EU scheme and our scheme? Clearly there are graduated products, particularly in the agricultural sphere, where the protection afforded is to southern European producers for certain agricultural products that have no relevance in the United Kingdom. This could be true for industrial products as well.

As was said in the previous group of amendments, that is my list. I hope the regulations will include—but not necessarily be limited to—those details. There may be other issues that noble Lords will want to make sure are set out by the first regulations. It will be helpful for us to have an idea because, depending on circumstances, it may not be long before the shape of the trade preference scheme becomes clear in detail, not just in its overall application, as was set out in the 2018 Act.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which I have signed up to. The meeting that he referred to was extremely helpful in drawing out some of the confusion that emerged during our first debate in Committee. The issues of how countries get on to the lists, how the lists get managed and shaped, and how the changes might come forward were all explored carefully; we now have a much better understanding. In these lists, there are bound to be curious decisions which do not seem to match up to one’s perspectives. I was in Tanzania on holiday recently and it certainly did not come across as one of the least-developed countries, although clearly there are issues around how it will progress and develop its own trading arrangements.

The point behind the amendment is to get on record some further points that have emerged. The noble Lord was kind enough to suggest that we might have further questions, but his all-encompassing knowledge and brilliant, incisive questions are quite enough for me.

[Lord Bates]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Stevenson, for moving the amendment standing in their names and giving us another opportunity to discuss this important area. We are moving to a stage where we can consider how having an independent trade policy could provide opportunities, particularly to the least developed countries in the world.

I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Stevenson, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for the debate we had in Committee and for then participating in what I was glad to hear reported as a helpful meeting. I join noble Lords in saying that I found it an incredibly helpful meeting, which improved my own understanding not only of the barriers and hurdles but of the opportunities that are there.

I should perhaps deal directly with my noble friend Lord Lansley’s questions, rather than outlining issues that have been previously discussed in Committee and on which the House is already aware of our position. The noble Lord asked whether it is the Government’s intention to identify a sub-category of vulnerable countries. The answer is yes: we will be replicating the GSP+ tier of economically vulnerable countries.

The noble Lord asked whether these trade preferences would undermine human and labour rights. The UK has a longstanding commitment to universal human rights, and this will be reflected in our trade preferences schemes. As part of transitioning the EU preferences scheme, we will be maintaining a similar approach to human rights commitments.

On the question of who will investigate accusations of subsidies, dumping, surges of imports et cetera, the Trade Remedies Authority will be able to investigate cases against any country, including preference-receiving countries. In doing so, it will consider allegations of dumping, subsidies and unforeseen surges in imports which cause injury to UK industry. Where the TRA determines that a trade remedy measure should be applied, it can make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who can accept or reject that recommendation. Such measures usually take the form of an additional amount of import duty above the most favoured nation rate.

--- Later in debate ---

I am not necessarily looking for the amendment to be adopted by Ministers, but I hope that they will see the benefit—even if they cannot tell us what is planned—of saying that, structurally, we should start with the EU external tariff and the WTO schedules as they are but be prepared, in a no-deal situation, to look at how we can liberalise trade through lower rates of duty across many products. We could then have specific protections for, for example, farmers and the ceramics industry—those were referred to in our Committee debates—which may require particular protection against non-EU countries that bring in products at a lower rate of duty. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I have a private joke with the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that there is a small and declining number of people in this House with an interest in intellectual property, and that we used to gather to discuss arcane issues using incomprehensible language to our hearts’ content. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is clearly a member of that group, and there are one or two others. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is unfortunately not in her place, has joined the group recently. I say that because the discussion of the WTO tariff rate is coming down to that rather narrow group of people who have a deep knowledge of and fascination for the issues and are interested in exploring them, but are frustrated by the fact that the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, on which we should have had the chance to discuss the points so ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was held back from us by procedural rules and went through without much debate. We are therefore having to invent a way of getting into that discussion.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has done a great service to the House by going through some of the very intricate and complicated issues around setting tariffs and rates and how you play the game against the very complicated rules of the WTO. He does it, however, from a position of knowledge and experience that, I am afraid, will be frustrated again tonight, because there is not the will in the House to go through it in detail. Indeed, I tabled an amendment a week or two ago—when I thought there would be more time to discuss these things—on the prospect of the GSP tariff rates, setting and mechanisms. He is right that there are broader issues around those that we should discuss. However, this is not the time—and we do not have the time—to go into the detail, so I will not press my Amendment 14, which comes later, because the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised the same points in a broader context. I hope that the Minister will respond briefly to the points raised, so that some of the issues that need to be on the record are on the record, but perhaps we should save some of the more detailed issues for another day.

[Lord Bates]

I thank my noble friend for moving the amendment. The noble Lord is right: my noble friend has raised, effectively, three issues that need to be examined. One is the level of tariffs. In that regard I will probably disappoint my noble friend by referring back to my noble friend Lady Fairhead’s response from the Ministers’ Bench to the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to set out a timetable for when those tariffs might become known. She made her points and they stand on the record; I probably do not need to repeat them. I also draw to the attention of the House The Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019, which was published on 26 February. On this occasion I draw my noble friend Lord Lansley’s attention to the section on tariffs, beginning at paragraph 31 and continuing into paragraph 32, which explores some aspects of the setting of tariffs.

Those are two aspects on the level of tariffs, but I now turn to some of the specifics to which my noble friend referred. He asked about the status of the common external tariff applied by the WTO. The noble Lord is correct that we have notified our bound tariff schedule to the WTO. Our bound schedule represents the upper limits of what tariffs the UK could apply on imports. If, for example, our bound schedule says 10% for product X, we could choose to apply 9%. The Government have yet to announce their applied tariffs for a no-deal scenario, but the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is correct to say that on leaving the EU we will be free to set out tariffs within the parameters of the bound schedule that we lodged last year.

The EU’s common external tariff—as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—is the EU’s version of its applied tariff schedule. These are the tariffs that will apply to UK exports to the EU in a no-deal scenario. My noble friend also referenced the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act, which states that the first time a tariff is set, and whenever an import duty rate increases, the made affirmative procedure will apply; otherwise the negative procedure will apply.

These amendments would make the made affirmative procedure apply in different circumstances. In the case of Amendment 10, that would be any time the rate of import duty diverged from the bound commitment made by the UK to the WTO; in the case of Amendment 14 the made affirmative procedure would apply in all circumstances. However, under both amendments it is currently stipulated that the setting of the tariff would remain a matter for the other place. The Act ensures that the scrutiny procedures applied to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate, taking into account the extremely detailed nature of the tariff and the frequency with which it may be changed. The tariff is long and complex; it currently contains 17,000 types of goods and is more than 1,000 pages long. The EU tariff is subject to regular, almost daily, amendment, so the current balance of the chosen procedure reflects that understanding.

Once again, I express the Government’s appreciation to my noble friend Lord Lansley for moving this amendment, giving us the opportunity to expand on our positions and put those additional remarks on the record. I hope that is helpful and reassuring to him, and that he feels able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords, to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said, I was one of the noble Lords who led on the amendment—along with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others—suggesting that the EEA was the least worst option. That amendment to the withdrawal Bill was passed overwhelmingly. That decision, therefore, has been made by this House; it was overturned by the other place, but it could quite probably—as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, has said—come up again as the least worst option.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, although the key point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, that this might seem a little out of keeping with the rest of today’s discussions, points were made here that will be resonant as we move on with the Bill. I commend them to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

12: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Parliamentary approval of trade agreements
(1) Negotiations towards a free trade agreement may not commence until the Secretary of State has laid a draft negotiating mandate before the appropriately constituted Committee and it has been approved by—(a) resolution of that Committee, and(b) a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.(2) Prior to the draft negotiating mandate being laid, the Secretary of State must have consulted with each devolved administration on the content of the draft negotiating mandate.(3) Prior to considering a resolution approving a mandate relating to the negotiation of a free trade agreement, the Committee must produce a sustainability impact assessment.(4) Before either House of Parliament may approve by resolution the text of a proposed free trade agreement, the Secretary of State must lay the text of the proposed agreement before the Committee and that text must be approved by a resolution of that Committee.(5) Prior to the laying of the text of the proposed agreement, the Secretary of State must have consulted with each devolved administration on the text of the proposed agreement.(6) Prior to considering a resolution approving the text of a free trade agreement under subsection (4), the Committee must produce a report setting out a recommendation in relation to the ratification of the agreement.(7) The Secretary of State must lay the report produced under subsection (6) before both Houses of Parliament.(8) Schedule (Committee on Trade Agreements) contains further provision about the reports under subsection (6).(9) A free trade agreement may not be ratified unless the agreement has been laid before, and approved by an amendable resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.(10) The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is amended as follows.(11) At the end of section 25(2) insert “, or a treaty containing a free trade agreement as defined in section (Parliamentary approval of trade agreements) of the Trade Act 2019.”(12) In this section, “free trade agreement” refers to any agreement between the United Kingdom and one or more partners that includes components that facilitate the trade of goods, services or intellectual property including but not limited to— (a) Free Trade Agreements (FTA) as defined by section 8;(b) Interim Association Agreements, Association Agreements (AA);(c) Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA);(d) Interim Partnership Agreements;(e) Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAA);(f) Global Agreements (GA);(g) Economic Area Agreements (EAA);(h) Cooperation Agreements (CA);(i) Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreements (CETA);(j) Association Agreements with strong trade component;(k) Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships (TTIP);(l) Investment Protection Agreements.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, after that brief pause for dramatic effect, we move on quickly. We have already begun to discuss this issue because it was the subject of the Motion before the House before we began to consider Report, so I can be relatively brief. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Purvis of Tweed, for joining me on Amendment 12. I will speak also to Amendment 35, which would be a new schedule dependent on Amendment 12 and which I consider to be consequential.

The background is the White Paper on future trade deals that was referred to. It is very good to read in that paper that,

“the Government is clear that we must have a transparent and inclusive future trade policy that delivers for all parts of the United Kingdom … that there must be a strong and effective role for Parliament in scrutinising our trade policy and free trade agreements … We recognise that the best free trade agreements will be those that draw on the extensive expertise and experience of both the House of Commons and House of Lords and have its full support”.

Unfortunately, those good recommendations in the White Paper do not follow on from the analysis. The problem that we have come across is that the stumbling block seems to be the rather startling assertion:

“The making amending and withdrawing from treaties are functions of the executive which are carried out in exercise of the Royal Prerogative”.


I thought that we decided some time ago that the royal prerogative had had its day. It is a bit odd to see it prayed in aid in this case.

Trade negotiations are no longer just a matter of the import and export of physical goods. They are about societal rights, environmental rights, the provision of healthcare, and investment protection. There are trade-offs between services and tariffs, which was exactly the point that we were discussing earlier today. The public are entitled to know what the Government are doing. We in Parliament are duty-bound to have a role in scrutinising what the Government intend to do. Surely our country needs a modern approach to the approval of trade agreements, with proper roles identified for the Executive and for Parliament, which can operate a sensible scheme rooted in reality, not fantasy, and which is appropriate for our representative democratic system.

The Government say that this proposal,

“should draw on the expertise of Parliament … via a close relationship with a specific parliamentary committee in each House”.

They suggest that these committees,

“would have the power to produce a detailed report … to assist parliamentarians and the public in understanding the agreement and its potential implications”.

Moreover:

“Where the Committee(s) indicated that the agreement should be subject to a debate prior to the commencement of parliamentary scrutiny under CRaG, the Government would consider and seek to meet such requests where those requests are made within a reasonable timeframe and subject to parliamentary timetables”.


These are a pale imitation of what we already have in the EU, where the relevant committee follows trade negotiations extremely closely and a plenary vote in the Parliament is required before the conclusion of an agreement.

In our view, the arrangements proposed in the White Paper do not provide a solid role for Parliament that meets the expectations of those who are interested in trade and which is required for modern trade negotiations, particularly during the scoping and negotiating phases; n or do they accord Parliament the role it should have in ratifying the final agreement, with positive votes being required in each House. I hope the Government will engage with us on this issue and I would be very happy to meet them again to explore the way forward. In the interim, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

I therefore hope the noble Lord will see that, although we share much common ground here, we cannot support these amendments. The proposals we brought forward last week strike the right balance between ensuring a strong and effective scrutiny role for Parliament and respecting our existing constitutional framework with regards to the making of international treaties. They set out clear commitments on the part of the Government to ensure effective scrutiny, while leaving sufficient flexibility for Parliament itself to shape the final arrangements. I hope that, in light of this, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I will keep the Minister in suspense about what I am going to do, but not for long. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which has been high level, and interesting in that some of the issues which perhaps have been a bit confused have been allowed to emerge in it.

I make it absolutely clear at the start that I do not believe that the amendment in my name and those of the other noble Lords who have joined me is a perfect solution to the problem we are facing. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is quite right to pick up a number of inconsistencies in that—noble Lords do not have to laugh that loud. But in my mitigation, may I say that it is not the job of the Opposition to draft for the Government the sort of detailed legislative framework which is being talked about here? This needs a lot of time, effort and attention which we are not able to bring to it.

[Viscount Hailsham]

Does the noble Lord then accept that it is necessary to have some provision to deal with the situation that would arise under proposed new subsections (1) and (4), where the two Houses disagree?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Yes—but I do not have it. I challenge the Minister: if she is asserting that we are as close as she says we are, would she agree to have further discussions and bring forward an amendment we could both support at Third Reading? I will give her time to seek inspiration. I am not confident that it will come in any palatable form but I make this offer genuinely. It is so important and the principles so germane to what we are doing that we should try to go the extra mile if we can.

Having said that, I think the Government are hiding behind a completely fantasised world in which everything is rolled back, as someone said, to the 19th century with the royal prerogative secure in its place. Somehow, Parliament would be consulted; it would be able to scrutinise and look at the outline approach. The clue is in the language: why outline an approach except to mandate? Why scrutinise, when what we are talking about is post hoc discussion in Committee, reports that will gather dust in libraries but not have any effect, and no chance to influence at a parliamentary level what is being decided.

There are issues of principle at stake—about who has the right to make the decisions that will literally affect the people of this country in a very material way. This is because of the way in which trade has moved away from being simply about goods. It now involves services and a whole range of socioeconomic issues that need to be addressed in the round, at the highest level, by those elected by the people they serve. We have a role, though not as an elected House. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that, in any discussion about priority, of course it has to be the Commons that takes the final decision.

These proposals need to be worked through properly. I will pause for a second to allow the Minister to respond on whether she is prepared to take this up at Third Reading. I will talk until I have to sit down, but I will give way to her if she wishes to make a comment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

While my noble friend is proposing to make a comment, it is highly important that the question of whether something should be discussed at Third Reading is a matter for this House. We have become rather accustomed to attempts on the part of Ministers to decline the opportunity of a Third Reading, but it is for this House to decide. I have no doubt that this particular, very important problem, which involves a delicate balance between the Executive on the one hand and Parliament’s two Houses on the other, should be handled with the utmost care. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, noted, this is an issue about which there is already a bit of difficulty with the detail. We must try to get this right. I have no doubt that, if it is agreed at this stage, the House will allow it to be raised at Third Reading.

[Baroness Fairhead]

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Inspiration is not my line but there is no doubt at all that it is for the House to decide. The mere fact that the Minister has not been able to agree that the matter should come back does not seem to be a bar to the House deciding whether or not it is right. If the noble Lord tables a new amendment for Third Reading, the clerks will have a view but, ultimately, whether it should be considered is a decision for the House.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am getting inspiration in the form of a book from my noble friend.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My noble friend could retable the amendment. He should, really.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

In short, the advice is confused, but I am going to think about it.

The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, set a very high test for the response today. He wanted a detailed response that would assure him that the Government had in mind significant changes that would meet some of the questions raised. I think the view of the House is that the response was not up to that level; therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

13: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Customs union
It shall be the objective of Her Majesty’s Government to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement which enables the United Kingdom to participate after exit day in a customs union with the European Union.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to give the other place a chance to consider whether the UK should seek to remain in a customs union with the EU. It is an option that we know is realistic and negotiable, as signalled by senior EU figures over recent weeks and months. It has demonstrable support among communities throughout the United Kingdom, this House and the Commons, as well as business and trade unions, and would go a very long way to providing a permanent solution for Northern Ireland.

A customs union with the EU would guarantee continued UK access to existing EU trade agreements without having to roll over after 29 March, although that does not seem to be going terribly well. It would enable the UK to have a say on the direction of future European trade negotiations, allowing us to push forward our principles of development and strong standards, and our values in tackling issues such as climate change. It would offer certainty and stability to British industry, thereby protecting jobs and allowing businesses to secure new trading opportunities. When coupled with a close single market relationship, it would create the conditions for our vital services economy—80% of our GDP—to flourish and grow. The other place narrowly rejected a customs union when it considered the Bill, in part because the Prime Minister promised to replicate the benefits in her deal. However, they are for negotiation and certainly not yet agreed.

If this House supports the amendment, we are doing our duty in allowing the Commons to think again about a really important issue. I beg to move.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, there is no doubt that we on these Benches support the free economic movement of goods and people, which benefits all parts of the British economy and of our United Kingdom. The news today from the motor manufacturing industry is no surprise to those who have been following the assets leaving the United Kingdom and seen the people leaving the United Kingdom. There is a growing and depressing trend of businesses making a choice to move away, or at least to move some elements away, from the United Kingdom.

One of the principal reasons for that is the uncertainty about our trading relationship with our biggest market. The amendment, to which I have put my name, is better than the Government’s current position, or any position they are likely to take. That is why I support it. It is becoming a cliché that business needs certainty, but for many businesses it is now too late. The least this House can do, through the Bill, is to offer a higher level of certainty to businesses that there is some support for the UK remaining a member of a customs union.

I shall give one small example, of the many that could be offered, of why it is important to avoid the kind of disruption that leaving a customs union would bring about. This was highlighted in the Government’s recently published paper, Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019, and it illustrates what leaving a customs union would mean. There is a requirement for all businesses trading with the European Union to have an economic operator registration and identification number, in order to,

“complete the necessary customs documentation for goods they are importing”.

It is not simply desirable; it is necessary. As the Government themselves say,

“an EORI number registration is one of the most basic and straightforward parts of the process most businesses would need to undertake to prepare for no deal”.

Businesses will need that number on exit day. The government document goes on:

“As of February 2019 there had only been around 40,000 registrations for an EORI number, against an estimate of around 240,000 EU-only trading businesses”.


So we are one-sixth ready to leave.

The document highlights the fact that on an issue for which government communications have been strong, and the information to businesses about the fact that they needed to prepare has been clear, they have not done so—for a number of reasons. This illustrates the complexities required of the business community if we are outside a customs arrangement that would amount to a union. That is one reason, among many others, why we support the amendment.

We on these Benches reserve our right to campaign strongly for the UK to retain membership of the single market, as well as the customs union, of the European Union, and to say that if there is to be a withdrawal agreement it should be ratified by the people in a referendum. I hope that those on the Labour Benches are also moving faster in that direction. That debate is for another time. The debate on the movement of people is for the next day on Report, but for the moment we can give a signal to businesses across the country that the House of Lords, at least, is focused on providing a degree of certainty, even if the Government are not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, at this hour, and given the debate, there will probably not be many Members of your Lordships’ House who are carefully weighing the arguments on either side, wanting to know what the Minister is going to say from the Dispatch Box that could just persuade them another way. We have been around this course many times and the arguments have not changed. The House knows the Government’s position on this: they have set it out many times. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union and to take back control of their laws, borders and money, and have an independent trade policy. If we had a customs union, we would not get that. That is the central point against the amendment. On the other hand, we have a withdrawal agreement that allows us to have many of the benefits of our membership of the European Union without being members of it, and honours the referendum result.

I shall come to two points. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, when moving the amendment—which is worthy of further examination as to what it is seeking the Government to do—said that he wanted to give the other House an opportunity to think again on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in a brilliant, brief contribution—perhaps because we had heard his eloquence on this point in Committee—reminded the House that it voted in favour of his amendment. What they did not mention was that when it went to the other House, giving it an opportunity to think again, it rejected not only your Lordships’ amendment but the concept of a customs union put forward by Stephen Hammond when the Bill was at this stage in the other place. If the purpose is to give that House another opportunity to think again, perhaps it could shout down the Corridor, “We have already said it; did you not hear us the first time?”

Some noble Lords have pointed out that the uncertainty is damaging for business. I accept that. Uncertainty is always damaging for business. What business needs is certainty. However, right at the 11th hour, when we are within sight of and have an agreement, with an exit day that meets the criteria, the amendment proposes to require Her Majesty’s Government to reopen the whole negotiation process that has taken place over the past two years. Somehow that is supposed to help business. Not many businesses would sign up to that level of reopening negotiations and uncertainty. The presentation of the amendment presupposes that the outcome and benefits of a customs union are known. No—they would have to be negotiated. That would be the case unless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, rightly said, it actually related not to “a” but “the” customs union. In that case, the noble Lords’ option would be there immediately. That is the position of those who want to stay in the European Union, and we understand it.

The amendment therefore plunges us further back into uncertainty and more years of negotiation. The House has already given its view, not once but twice, on this issue. The other place does not need the chance to think again and I therefore urge noble Lords to vote against the amendment if it is pushed to a Division. Most importantly, I urge all Members in the other place not to listen to the amendment but to look at the withdrawal agreement before them next week and make sure that they vote for it, so that we leave the European Union on 29 March, as the British people wanted, but with a deal.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Follow that wonderful peroration! The Minister has been practising, I am sure. I congratulate him on his brilliance in getting out of the Tugendhat trap. He obviously thought that he would be judged on whether he met the very high standards required of an answer in this place before going down to an ignominious defeat—as I hope will be the case. He did it by setting his own bar and then deciding whether he had passed it by inventing, as often happens in these debates, the things that I did not say and then arguing against them effectively. He ended up by appealing to the green Benches down the Corridor, where I think he will probably find a slightly better response than he will get today.

I am sorry that the Minister has to defend the indefensible. As he said, all the arguments have been exhausted. In response to two of the charges, yes, the other place has considered this matter before, but somebody once said, “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?” On the question of uncertainty, surely it is better to have a certain target, even if it takes time, than the continuing uncertainty of whether there will be a target, and that is what this amendment tries to do.

Customs unions are not very widely found in the world. They are a very special thing, particularly when they involve equality of partners trading with each other. The majority of customs unions in the world involve single dominant economies forcing terms on others. This customs union is a particularly good example of the way in which mature democracies coming together can create good for all and we should be very chary of moving out of it.

The Minister challenged the wording of the amendment but it is incredibly inclusive and was drafted to make sure that it stood the test of time. It simply states:

“It shall be the objective of Her Majesty’s Government to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement which enables the United Kingdom to participate after exit day in a customs union”.


It does not imply staying in the EU. I think that we have had the debate. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

15: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Involvement of judicial systems in trade disputes
(1) A trade agreement is not eligible for signature or ratification by the United Kingdom unless the agreement includes the provision in subsection (2).(2) Subject to section (3), legal proceedings brought against the United Kingdom under investment protection provisions included in a trade agreement will be heard by the courts and tribunals system of the United Kingdom.(3) If in the view of the Secretary of State there is a substantive case for including an investor state dispute settlement chapter in a future free trade agreement, regulations to that effect must be laid before both Houses of Parliament in advance of the approval of the mandate for that free trade agreement; and such regulations must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the mandate may be approved.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, Amendment 15 deals with whether future trade agreements should have a chapter or separate part relating to investor-state dispute settlement systems. These complicated issues have a long history and have been a feature of trade agreements for many years. I think the UK has some 90 in place. As a country, we have not found much difficulty with them. Their main purpose was to ensure that in the case of arrangements for financing and operating the agreements set up under various free trade agreements and similar arrangements, those who put money at risk had a secure route to ensure that when issues outside their control or the control of one of the partners concerned caused difficulties, there was a chance to recoup the monies involved.

In that sense, these ISDS chapters and separate agreements have a place, but they have some downsides, which have not yet had as much discussion as they should have had. The arrangements have been used in the past to prevent social change in countries which have been subject to a free trade agreement where investors have thought that their investment was at risk. They have sued in courts which have been set up specifically for the purpose and which are not transparent or available for wider scrutiny, in order to recoup the investment involved or to change the policies that have been brought about.

For example, in a recent case in a western European country, an investor sued a town authority which had introduced a national minimum wage on the basis that the deal under which they had been brought in to support the scheme did not make provision for additional wages to be paid out and, as a result, the company was losing funds. That case was not a question of cash transfer, it was the cancellation of a policy, which I think many people would find a rather strange outcome.

These schemes have been the subject of recent debate and discussion, particularly around TTIP, but in particular about the fact that they were included in the agreement with Canada signed by the EU only a few years ago and now in the process of being ratified. However, it is being ratified at the expense of the ISDS chapter. In order to ameliorate that in some ways, the EU has set up a special judicial system under which these schemes can be considered. It may be that the future of ISDS measures, if they are included in schemes, lies in that sort of approach. As will be argued, I am sure, that is a very intensive system in terms of salaries, structures and procedures and it may not be worth the candle.

This is a probing amendment to get a better understanding of where the Government stand on these issues. In moving the amendment today, we are also reaching out to the Government to suggest that it is time we got more organised. It seems strange that, at quite a high level, a mature democracy such as the UK, with tried and trusted judicial systems, has to go to the trouble of setting up a parallel system to deal with this class of activity. Surely our existing legal systems should be capable of drawing these in and working with them. Even it were necessary to set up a separate arrangement, does it need to be a permanent system or could there be an alternative route? If the Government were interested in further discussion on that, we would make an offer to see if we could find an amendment that would work. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fairhead]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Trade Agreements

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Fairhead]

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

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