Trade Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts
Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th January 2021

(3 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 128-R-III Third marshalled list for Report - (22 Dec 2020)
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
- Hansard - -

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 24. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 24

Moved by
--- Later in debate ---
I hope that my remarks have provided some solace to my noble friend. The Government recognise that international trade disputes serve different functions and can have wide-ranging impacts. Naturally—I absolutely take this point—some of these impacts will be of interest to Parliament. In recognition of this, the Government will address, I hope as part of the way forward that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was seeking, important considerations around trade disputes within a report that the Department for International Trade will lay before Parliament. On this basis, I hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
- Hansard - -

I have received a request to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I call the noble Lord to ask a short question of elucidation.

Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

--- Later in debate ---
Amendments 43 to 45 not moved.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
- Hansard - -

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 46. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once. Short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Schedule 2: Regulations under Part 1

Amendment 46

Moved by