Trade Bill

Baroness Morris of Bolton Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn to the House, and I congratulate both on their maiden speeches.

In post-Brexit Britain we should expect this Trade Bill to be a landmark piece of legislation. It will be a major element of global Britain, laying the groundwork for ambitious trade deals, which we are told will follow our EU exit. Therefore, one objective of the Bill should surely be to establish an enduring framework for future trade negotiations, to secure as wide a consensus as possible.

In setting trade mandates, we should expect to see extensive consultation with businesses, representative bodies, consumer groups and all those likely to be affected by the treaty in question. Negotiating objectives should be agreed with Parliament and the devolved Administrations, with provisions for regular progress reports and the chance to scrutinise the draft treaties. Surely both Houses and the devolved Administrations would debate and vote on the final treaty. We could expect the whole process to be at least as comprehensive and transparent as under the EU, but now also including provisions to uphold the high environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards established in the UK.

I have to say that the reality falls short, not just compared with what happened when we were a member of the EU but as set against the way that other major trading nations, such as the US or Australia, conduct and oversee their trade deals. This Trade Bill is very limited. The Minister has argued that that is because it is concerned only with the rollover of existing trade treaties, but the Bill will inevitably set important precedents for the future. Its current contents show that “taking back control” applies only to the Government, with negligible input from Parliament, the devolved Administrations or extra-parliamentary groups such as farmers, industrialists, business or consumer bodies. This does not bode well for future trade policy and will not lead to successful trade deals.

Amendments are required in four areas, first and foremost to include wide consultation with a range of bodies to feed into the drawing up of trade mandates—interest groups that could track progress and add their weight and insights as negotiations proceed. If our trade policy is to be effective, it has to mobilise as broad a constituency as possible and not, as now, be shrouded in the utmost secrecy.

Secondly, it is urgent that we clarify the role and input of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations, with clear indications of when and how they feed into the legislative process.

Thirdly, there has to be a meaningful role for Parliament. Parliament should be seen as a partner in negotiations, an important sounding board and indeed a useful weapon when negotiations get tough.

Fourthly, on standards, we are going backwards. The previous Trade Bill on Report had clauses upholding a range of standards as a result of discussions held between the then Trade Minister and a number of us from across the House. Those clauses have disappeared. What has happened to them? Some Members have argued that such clauses would fall foul of WTO rules. I point out that that depends on how they are interpreted; the relevant provisions can be and are interpreted flexibly by our trade competitors, and are not the great obstacles that ardent Brexiteers would have us believe. As we know, there is also growing pressure from the public for the Bill to provide protections for the NHS by excluding it from the scope of trade negotiations.

So the Bill as it stands is inadequate and, in many areas, unacceptably limited. It needs amendment, and I look forward to further debate in Committee.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

As the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has withdrawn, I call the noble Lord, Lord Judd.