Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Just over two and a half years ago, the UK set out as an independent trading nation and began a new future outside the European Union. That future would be shaped by rekindling old partnerships, striking up new ones and harnessing the power of free trade to create prosperity for every corner of the UK. The free trade agreements that we have signed with Australia and New Zealand represent the first significant successes on this journey, and they are the first from-scratch trade deals that the UK has signed in 50 years.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way so promptly. I appreciate that it is a bit unusual to intervene so soon, but I wonder if she accepts that the process by which we are having this debate utterly undermines this House. It is deeply undemocratic that there has not been any way for us to have a full vote on the objectives of each future trade deal or access the negotiating texts, for example; there are no guarantees for the House on any of those things. Will she take away the anger that is felt certainly on the Opposition side of the House about that, and look to change the process in future?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I hope that as we progress the discussions today, we will be able to look at them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we have built into these first two of our trade deals these very clear and robust safeguards, so that there cannot in the early years be the sort of surges that could risk the success of our important tenant farmers. That is also why the work that the National Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union of Scotland do is so important in helping our farming communities.

I too have many small tenanted farms in my constituency, and this is the opportunity for them to work together and to work in the new markets that will be appearing thanks to the continuing new trade deals we will strike. This is about how we can get the maximum benefit not only as they produce for our own domestic markets, but, if they choose to do so, as they export some of the finest meat in the world to new and growing markets across the world.

These two trade deals are very much the first two anchor points, as it were, of a broad and wide set of trade deals that will afford such opportunities to all our farmers, from the large farmers that are very good at fighting their own corner through to—exactly as my hon. Friend points out—our small but incredibly important farmers across our rural communities. Their importance is not only in the food they produce, but in land management and, indeed, in the wider community, so that is at the heart of the plan.

As I say, the negotiating teams that the Department for International Trade take to these negotiations have at their heart teams of experts from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as from other Departments as required for each of the chapters in the trade deals.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Secretary of State is very generous in giving way. On that point, does she not recognise that the bottom line is that if we are rightly asking farmers to lead the way on more sustainable farming methods, yet at the same time allowing imports to come in that will undercut them—because they are not having to meet the same standards and are therefore cheaper—we are essentially handing farmers a knife to cut their own throats? It is simply not sustainable. Notwithstanding all her nice words about safeguards, do we not need to make sure that there are much stronger environmental regulations in these trade agreements so that we do not actually cut off the livelihoods of our own small farmers?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

We have not only built in safeguards for that, but of course all the safety regulations in our own domestic requirements remain clear barriers to entry, so we are very clear that there will no dilution of or risk to any safety requirements on food.

Trade Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

No, I will make some progress. The Government are strongly committed to transparency, as demonstrated by the steps we have already taken.

New clause 12 proposes a review of free trade agreements every five years after entry into force. We have already established regular dialogue with the International Trade Committee, and that is perhaps the best forum to provide information and assessment of the UK’s wider trade environment and trade relationships to Parliament.

New clause 18 seeks to give Parliament and the devolved legislatures binding votes on, or vetoes over, international agreements, which would be to fundamentally undermine the royal prerogative and, worse, limit our flexibility to negotiate the deals that will best serve the interests of UK consumers and communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I absolutely give my hon. Friend those assurances. The Government’s climate change agenda—indeed, the whole country’s agenda—is incredibly important for us at the Department for International Trade. We have put a lot of time and effort into promoting our capability and capacity in things such as offshore wind. I am regularly saying to international investors and trade partners that the UK now has the largest offshore wind capacity in the world. This is something we are seeking to export and it is something trade agreements can be helpful in. We are working with some of our key partners on these aspects of trade agreements, but they can also be something that the whole of government can work together on.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I am going to make some progress. Let me address matters related to animal welfare, food standards and food safety. I recognise the strength of feeling that those issues generate among colleagues in all parts of the House, but as I have told the House on many occasions, as have the Secretary of State and my Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs colleagues, this Government will stand firm in trade negotiations. We will always do right by our farmers and aim to secure new opportunities for the industry, and we will not dilute our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which allows me to explain the difference. Some of the amendments seek to dynamically align other people’s methods of production with those that we use in the UK. Yes, we will have, and maintain, exceptionally high standards of domestic production, domestic products and import controls, and we can influence our trading partners.

However, I cannot put into legislation a dynamic regulatory alignment playing field for our trading partners. That would be impractical and it would render inoperable most of our existing trade agreements, and potentially render impossible doing a future trade agreement with the European Union. If all these trading partners had to sign up to dynamically aligning their standards with the UK, that would make it extremely challenging not just to keep our existing trade agreements but to do trade agreements with partners in the future.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Greg Hands]

I will not, because I have gone on for long enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows from being on the International Trade Committee, CRAG was part of the process that we had as EU members. I will come to that in more detail a bit later.

[Caroline Lucas]

I just note that, as a member of the European Parliament’s trade committee, I had far more powers of scrutiny over trade agreements as an MEP than I have ever had as an MP here. However, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Government’s refusal to bar imports from producers that produce to lower environmental or animal welfare standards spells real disaster for our farmers? If they are going to get undercut by cheaper produce that does not meet the same standards, how on earth can they make a living if they have to meet higher standards, and therefore probably higher costs as well?

--- Later in debate ---

These amendments are intended simply to kill trade, because nobody wanting a trade deal would accept such terms. Trade deals that allowed food to be imported from the poorest areas of the world, in particular in the developing world, would be impossible. The amendments would obviously kill off any prospect of any trade deal with anybody else. They would kill off our existing trade deals that the Minister is trying very hard to roll over with this Bill, and they might even render it impossible to secure a trade deal with the European Union. These are, therefore, trade-killing amendments. They are wholly unnecessary, and I urge the House to reject them.

[Caroline Lucas]

It is extremely interesting to follow the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who seems to be labouring under a completely false set of perceptions. First, the standards referred to in new clause 11, and indeed in many of these amendments, are the standards for products exported from country A to us here in country B. We are not making any comment about the products that are circulating within that country. We are simply saying that, if we want our farmers not to use sow stalls, for example, it makes no sense not to apply such conditions to the imports of food coming from countries that are using those standards. If our standards imply higher costs and we do not have some way of moderating the goods coming in from countries that are not imposing those standards, our farmers will be undercut. I really wish he would get his facts straight before standing up and saying that these amendments do not make sense, because they do.

I stand to speak to new clause 9, tabled in my name. New clause 9 stipulates that no international trade agreement may be ratified or implemented if it restricts the UK’s ability to pursue its climate and environmental goals. It requires the Government to make full implementation of multilateral environmental agreements by all participating nations the priority during trade negotiations, and to prioritise facilitating action to that end at the World Trade Organisation. It requires regular reporting on compliance with the above. Overall, it would ensure that the Government’s trade policy is in line with their international climate obligations and domestic environmental targets.

The Trade Bill should have been an opportunity to provide a clear direction of travel on the UK’s new trading status. It should have set out a democratic, environmentally and socially just framework for a new, pioneering and independent trade policy. The Conservative election manifesto promised that the Conservatives would not

“compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”

Yet, as we have seen, the gap between reality and rhetoric is a yawning gulf. We do not want yet more warm words and nice rhetoric. What we want are some red lines in the negotiations, and the way to get them is to write them into this Bill. That is all that those on the Opposition side of the House are asking for.

Instead, what we have with this Trade Bill is the same rehashed, controversial proposal from before the general election. It is one that fails completely to take account of the long-standing climate and nature crises or, indeed, of the covid-19 pandemic that has happened since. The UK’s objectives for trade deals must change to keep up. They must prioritise action to tackle the climate crisis, sustainable food supply chains, decent work and, as has been so sharply highlighted, universal and affordable access to medical supplies.

As it stands, this Bill risks undermining the UK’s social, labour, environmental and agricultural standards. It fails to ensure that imported products adhere to at least equivalent standards. I therefore welcome all the amendments that have the same objectives as my new clause 9, which would provide us with a framework for protecting the standards that keep us safe. This is not an academic discussion, as we know. We know that the US Administration have made it very clear that they want the UK to lower its food standards to allow the export of products currently banned in the UK, and that is why we need to be on our guard.

[Steve Brine]

I am listening to the hon. Member carefully, as I always do, but we are dealing in facts. She said, following my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), that we should deal in facts; for the record, I thought he dealt in facts beautifully. Does she accept the point that the Food Standards Agency, for which I used to be responsible as a Minister, would have to propose any change in lowering regulatory standards—let us say, for instance, in how one washes chicken. It would have to propose such a regulatory change, which would have to be bought through these Houses of Parliament. Does she accept that as a fact?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am happy to accept that as a fact, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the unwillingness of this Government to put their objectives into the Bill is causing massive concern? Thousands of people are writing to the Minister to say that they are deeply, deeply concerned, so why not put them in the Bill? Unless they are there, we are not going to take them seriously. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I just do not think that people are going to believe warm words; they want such things in the Bill.

We need to be listening to those people who are contacting the Minister. That includes, as we have heard before, not just the National Farmers Union, but many other organisations and many people from civil society. We also need to be listening to the science.

I want to end by speaking to the issue of climate change and the fact that all our policy arrangements going forward need to be aligned to the essential fact of not exceeding the threshold of 1.5°. This year, 2020, is on course to be the warmest ever. Aligning trade policy with environmental and climate objectives is not just something that would be good to do; it would be reckless and perilous to do anything else. Despite the hype of a brave new post-Brexit world, this Trade Bill perpetuates the status quo. It is totally unfit for purpose from the point of view of standards; democratic scrutiny; secret courts that can also undermine values of the kind we want enshrined in trade Bills going forward.

[Craig Williams]

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this debate and I welcome the fact that the Minister sailed the Bill through Committee unamended. I say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that the rhetoric, facts and a couple of other statements that she made simply all mix together and I am afraid that I agree fundamentally with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). The fact that she wants something in the Bill that is already the law of the land gives excellent credence to what rhetoric is.

[Caroline Lucas]

One of the reasons that I want things in the Bill is that they might otherwise be changed through statutory instruments, which might not even see the sides of this Chamber. We want them in the Bill so we can have the debate here in this Chamber.

[Craig Williams]

The hon. Lady, I know, understands the process of this House probably better than me, and a statutory instrument sailing through this place without a vote on the Floor would mean a dereliction of duty by those on the Opposition Benches. I know as well as she does that it would be easy to facilitate such a vote. Not only that, but those on the Treasury Bench have been absolutely clear.

In the short time I have, I want to echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), with whose thoughtful contribution at the start of the debate I agreed very much. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I think he is the grandfather of the commission we now have for trade and agriculture, although I do not want to age him. My hon. Friend did more to engage me with my farmers than the National Farmers Union has done in a decade. I suspect that was done in 10 minutes amending the last Bill, rather than what the NFU tried to do in an ongoing dialogue.

Trade Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In calling in a moment the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), principally to speak to her new clause and in the knowledge that she is a celebrated and award-winning parliamentarian, I feel that I can say with total confidence that she will require no longer than five minutes to make her case.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Indeed, I do rise to speak to new clause 3, which is in my name and signed by more than 50 Members of the House from four different parties, and I give notice that I would like to move it when it comes to the votes.

This amendment essentially seeks to remedy the Bill’s failure to provide for a proper role for parliamentarians in the scrutiny and approval of trade agreements. At present, trade agreements can be negotiated, or renegotiated as is likely to be the case with many of the existing EU trade deals covered by this Bill, entirely under royal prerogative powers, essentially giving the Government free rein to decide when and with whom to start negotiations, to set their own priorities and objectives, to conduct the negotiations in great secrecy, and to conclude the deal without any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. That not only sidelines Members of this House, but it prevents valuable input by civil society organisations and the wider public. This Bill is supposed to help implement an independent trade policy following withdrawal from the EU, but it does nothing to put in place the kind of scrutiny and approval framework that should be required for an accountable trade policy in a modern democratic country. And this is the only legislative opportunity we are likely to have to put such a framework in place.

In his statement yesterday, the Secretary of State for International Trade once again sought to make a distinction between replacements for existing EU trade deals and future trade deals, but the fact is that effective parliamentary scrutiny and approval is needed for both, for it is increasingly clear that, contrary to the hope of Ministers, it is not going to be a simple case of transitioning, or “rolling over,” existing EU trade deals. Some or all of the countries in question are not simply going to be content to continue with the existing arrangements, and Ministers will have little choice but to negotiate a replacement deal. So while yesterday’s statement by the Secretary of State must be welcomed for its clear, if somewhat overdue, recognition of the current democratic deficit in the making of trade deals and the need to correct that if we are to have a modern, transparent and accountable trade policy, it needs to be applied much more fully and more extensively.

Unfortunately, the package of proposals set out yesterday falls well short of what is required, both because it does not apply to the existing EU trade deals covered by this Bill and because it does not go far enough. For example, it is welcome that the Secretary of State proposes a process for Ministers to set out their ambitions before embarking on a new set of negotiations, including scoping assessments, and the commitment to publish impact assessments is also a step forward, but the reality is that recent impact assessments by the Government on trade have focused purely on the impact for exporters, without taking into account at all the wider economic impacts, let alone social, environmental, gender and regional impacts and the effects on workers’ rights. So we need to see a much stronger commitment to transparency.

Most significantly of all, the Secretary of State’s proposals fail to give Parliament meaningful oversight of new trade deals. For that to happen, Members of this House need a guaranteed vote on the deal that emerges from the negotiations. Without that, all the other measures proposed by the Secretary of State yesterday risk being little more than window-dressing.

The Secretary of State contends that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is all that is needed. However, that process is an utterly inadequate rubber stamp: it gives Parliament a right to say whether a new trade deal should or should not be ratified, but does not enable Parliament to propose modifications. Moreover, as we know to our detriment time and again, Ministers can and do simply overrule Parliament and ratify the trade deal despite Parliament’s objections. In contrast, Members of both the European Parliament and the US Congress get an automatic vote. If this issue is about taking back control, why do we not take back some control in this Chamber and make sure we get the same kind of vote that other legislatures with whom we will be negotiating do?

Trade deals are not simply commercial negotiations; they are public policy negotiations and should be treated as such. Transparency, scrutiny and parliamentary approval should be embraced, not treated as a risk.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady’s new clause says the impact assessment should include

“both qualitative and quantitative assessments”.

Can she give an example?

[Caroline Lucas]

A qualitative impact would be the impact on the environment, for example. We want to know not just the economic quantity of the impacts in terms of how much trade gain we are going to get out of a negotiation, but the qualitative impact on the public policy areas that I am talking about. We cannot quantify necessarily the impact of a trade deal on our own environmental standards, but we can say whether qualitatively those standards are going to be degraded. That is why we need both those terms: we want to know the quantitative and the qualitative impacts. They are separate, and it is not that difficult to see the difference.

New clause 3 sets out the kind of framework we need. Before commencing the negotiation of a trade agreement, Ministers must bring before Parliament at the very least a sustainability impact assessment conducted by a credible independent body, covering not just the potential economic impacts, but the social and environmental ones. The devolved authorities, businesses, trade unions and the public must be consulted about the potential agreement, as is required in the US. If the decision is to go ahead, Parliament would be required to give its consent to a mandate for the negotiations, setting guidelines and boundaries, a process based on the Danish model. The Government would conduct negotiations transparently, releasing texts before and after each negotiating round, building upon the procedure in the EU and following practices common in other areas of international negotiation, such as climate talks.

My amendment is a very basic and simple one. It is asking for things that are common in many other countries around the world, and saying that we should do the same.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

We are clearly in a very much better situation now with this Bill’s regulation scrutiny provisions than after the Second Reading in this House, and on that basis my recommendation will be that hon. Members do not vote for my new clause 6 or my amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, but that they vote for the alternative Government amendments, new clauses 12, 13 and 14 and all their tabled amendments to clause 2. If the Government amendments pass, Henry VIII will have been banished from this Bill and a sensible compromise scrutiny system will have been inserted. The Government have listened and done the right thing and we should support them for that, but there are still issues, so let me explain my thinking.

This Bill applies to around 40 existing EU trade-related agreements involving some 70-plus third countries. This actually also includes some agreements that are concluded but are still due to be implemented, which I shall call collectively FTAs. It is estimated that 10 of the UK’s top 50 export markets are served by these EU FTAs, accounting for 35% of UK trade. I can therefore understand why the Government are keen for the UK to adopt these FTAs post Brexit, or “roll them over” in the terminology used by Ministers. In addition, I understand the practicalities of the situation: the Government have limited negotiating capacity and the idea of dealing with all of these 70 third countries and starting deals from scratch is undoubtedly unrealistic in the immediate term. Indeed, the average time for negotiating an FTA is seven years and the recent Canada deal took more like 15 years. So I understand that there is a lot at stake here for the UK, and I appreciate that the International Trade Department is under a lot of pressure to deliver.

Having said that, I do not think that the Department has covered itself in glory in its handling of these roll-overs. To start, I would make the point that we have been given a wall of silence. The International Trade Committee back in March asked the then Minister to prioritise these negotiations more, to publish a detailed timetable of the work-streams involved, to produce a risk register identifying clearly the agreements concerned and to have contingency plans even for where third countries have only given an assent in principle. It took the Government until 15 May to respond to the Committee report, and to call their response bland and non-committal would be an understatement. In the meantime, various leaks and rumours have been appearing, maintaining that some of the negotiations with third countries have not been going quite according to plan and that the EU has not been as helpful as the Ministers had originally thought it might be. This would include the EU telling us that it will not ask its FTA trade partners to allow the UK to benefit from their existing deals until the UK signs the final legal text of the Brexit deal. That could leave us with only a few months up to next March in which to negotiate the roll-overs.

Given all this, I have some sympathy with new clause 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), which demands further details of the status of these proposed roll-over deals, and the Minister should acknowledge the frustration on this that is shared by everyone outside his own Department. We have received vague assurances from the Department that the roll-over discussions are going according to plan and that everything will be all right on the night. We are also being told that the Government need to have this legislation in place so that they can action the roll-overs, and that they need the regulatory powers to make this happen quickly if need be, including in the situation of our Brexiting with a no-deal scenario.

I am trying to show that the Government have asked for sweeping Henry VIII powers while keeping people pretty much in the dark as to what they might be needed for, and while providing little hard evidence of what has been achieved to date. Of course, UK business has also been crying out to know where we stand as regards these important overseas markets. I hope that the Government are right and that the roll-overs will take place as planned with no or few changes, but that does not mean that it would be acceptable that any material changes to the deals should just be waved through by Ministers without any parliamentary scrutiny. For instance, let us say that one of the EU third countries with which we wish to roll over a deal says, “Yes, we agree that you can roll over, but let’s face it, you are a market of only 50 million people rather than 500 million, so we’ll agree to roll over, but only on condition that we also get 50,000 visas a year.” Under the Bill, that could be pushed through by Ministers on a negative order with no scrutiny at all. By the way, I do not see this as a remain argument or a leave argument; I see that as simply wrong. If Brexit is about returning power to Parliament, it is surely not about then just giving Ministers sweeping new powers, not least in a scenario where so little information has been given to hon. Members.

The Government have been maintaining that they wish to use these powers to roll over existing EU deals before possibly coming back to renegotiate substantive deals with the same countries, which would be subject to a scrutiny process yet to be proposed. However, I do not see why these same powers should not be capable of being used again after roll-over to make further changes to the same FTA during the five-year period—a sunset period which, with a possible further five-year extension, is in my opinion much too long.

All those reasons led me to think that we have a real problem with these provisions and I therefore tabled my amendments, looking for a triage and scrutiny system. However, since tabling the amendments, I have had an ongoing dialogue with Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) and more recently the Minister for Trade Policy, my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery). Discussions have been courteous and positive, and I am pleased to say that the Government have listened and tabled their own amendments—I think more than 40 of them—to clause 2.

This will mean that the first proposed statutory instruments related to an FTA will need to be laid not less than 10 sitting days after the issuing by a Minister of an explanatory report. The changes proposed in the report will then be cross-referred to in the related SI’s explanatory memorandum. Further, it is now proposed that all related SIs will be subject to the affirmative procedure, however material or immaterial they may be. This effectively takes away any need for sifting provisions. Finally, the sunset period is proposed to be cut from five to three years, plus up to a possible further three years following an affirmative resolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Hollingbery]

I shall try to be brief, Mr Speaker. I thank the Opposition spokesman for his remarks, but I am going to limit my comments in return to saying that I am very disappointed that Labour Front Benchers could not welcome what is undeniably a good and robust scrutiny arrangement. We have hugely improved the position. The House will now have adequate and deep opportunity to challenge the Government’s proposals on any transitioned free trade agreement, and I just think it was a shame they could not say so.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) knows very well that this Bill is about the continuity of existing arrangements. The Secretary of State yesterday set out our approach to new trade arrangements in the House, with plans for extensive public consultation, continuous parliamentary engagement and the setting up of the strategic trade advisory group, and clear plans for engagement with the devolved authorities, civil sector and civil society more generally.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) asked several questions. I very much welcome his comments on our discussions and the fact that he is prepared to accept our amendments today. I can confirm that not all transitioned agreements will need clause 2 powers to implement changes. I can further confirm that it is not the intention to use powers in clause 2 to implement a transitioned free trade agreement more than once, although of course these will need to remain operable over time. In relation to the clause 2 power, “exceptional” is modelled on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process. The threshold is high and the flexibility provided is simply a matter of prudence. Finally, he asked for reassurance about powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That Act allows regulations to be made that deal with matters arising from the UK’s exit from the European Union. The implementation of or transition to free trade agreements is not such a matter, so we cannot use that Act for the purpose of implementing a free trade agreement.

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) will know only too well that the Bill is about continuity: it is about not our future arrangements but our current arrangements. Yesterday, the Secretary of State comprehensively laid out our plans. We are committed to working with the devolved Administrations on our approach to the implementation of trade agreements that are signed after we have exited the EU, and they will also have a role in shaping the UK’s future trade negotiations. The Department held a successful deep dive on trade with devolved authorities in March 2018. A major outcome of that was the joint agreement on a regularised senior officials meeting, to take place every six weeks between the Department and the devolved authorities. A detailed rolling programme of policy and market-focused roundtables will take place over the rest of 2018. Beyond that, the hon. Gentleman has the reassurances that the Secretary of State gave yesterday on the devolved authorities’ participation. I hope that that at least gives him confidence that the Government are serious about their wish to negotiate with devolved authorities.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Hollingbery]

No, I am afraid I will not.

Finally, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands); my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham); and the hon. Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for their contributions to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

Reporting requirement not to apply in exceptional cases

“(1) Section (Report on proposed free trade agreement) does not apply to a free trade agreement if a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that, exceptionally, the agreement needs to be ratified without laying before Parliament a report which meets the requirements of subsection (3) of that section.

(2) If a Minister determines that a free trade agreement is to be ratified without laying before Parliament a report which meets the requirements of section (Report on proposed free trade agreement)(3), the Minister must, as soon as practicable after the agreement is ratified, lay before Parliament—

(a) a report which meets those requirements, and

(b) a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion mentioned in subsection (1) and explaining why.”—(George Hollingbery.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for NC12.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

Report to be laid with regulations under section 2(1)

“(1) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under section 2(1) for the purpose of implementing a free trade agreement to which the United Kingdom and another signatory (or other signatories) are signatories.

(2) A draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be laid before Parliament unless, at least 10 Commons sitting days before the draft is laid, a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a report which gives details of, and explains the reasons for, any significant differences between—

(a) the trade-related provisions of the free trade agreement to which the United Kingdom and the other signatory (or other signatories) are signatories, and

(b) the trade-related provisions of the existing free trade agreement.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if, at least 10 Commons sitting days before a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations is laid, a report in relation to the agreement has been laid before Parliament under section (Report on proposed free trade agreement)(3).

(4) In this section—

‘Commons sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons begins to sit;

‘the existing free trade agreement’ means the free trade agreement to which the European Union and the other signatory (or other signatories)—

(a) were signatories immediately before exit day, or

(b) where the report is laid before Parliament before exit day, are signatories on the day the report is laid before Parliament;

the ‘trade-related provisions’ of a free trade agreement are the provisions of the agreement that mainly relate to trade.”—(George Hollingbery.)

This new clause requires a Minister to lay a report before Parliament at least 10 Commons sitting days before regulations implementing a new free trade agreement are laid in draft under clause 2(1). The report is required to explain any significant differences between the new agreement and the existing agreement with the EU. The duty to lay a report does not apply if a report on the agreement has already been laid under NC12.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Free trade agreements: Parliamentary scrutiny and consent

“(1) The Secretary of State shall not commence negotiations relating to a free trade agreement unless—

(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a sustainability impact assessment conducted by a credible body independent of government following consultation with—

(i) each devolved authority,

(ii) public bodies, businesses, trade unions and non-governmental organisations which, in the opinion of the Minister, have a relevant interest, and

(iii) the public,

and the assessment shall include both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the potential impacts of the proposed trade agreement, including social, economic, environmental, gender, human rights, labour, development and regional impacts,

(b) a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a draft of a negotiating mandate relating to the proposed trade agreement, setting out—

(i) all fields and sectors to be included in the proposed negotiations,

(ii) the principles to underpin the proposed negotiations,

(iii) any limits on the proposed negotiations, and

(iv) the desired outcomes from the proposed negotiations, and

(c) the House of Commons has approved by resolution a motion, drafted in terms which permit amendment, setting out a proposed negotiating mandate and authorising the Secretary of State to enter negotiations on the proposed trade agreement on the basis of that mandate, and the House of Lords has approved a resolution in the same terms as that approved by the House of Commons.

(2) The United Kingdom may not become a signatory to a free trade agreement unless—

(a) during the course of the negotiations, the text of the trade agreement as so far agreed or consolidated has been made publicly available within ten working days of the close of each negotiating round,

(b) between each round of negotiations, all documents relating to the negotiations have been made available for scrutiny by select committees in both Houses of Parliament,

(c) upon conclusion of the negotiations, the House of Commons has approved by resolution a motion, drafted in terms which permit amendment, setting out the text of the trade agreement as negotiated and authorising the Secretary of State to sign the proposed agreement, and the House of Lords has approved a resolution in the same terms as that approved by the House of Commons, and

(d) the text of the trade agreement includes provision for a review of the operation and impacts of the agreement no later than ten years after the day on which the agreement comes into force.”—(Caroline Lucas.)

This new clause would ensure that all new free trade agreements are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consent.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Draft EU-Canada Trade Agreement Order

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I will come on to our position in due course.

The European Commission hailed CETA, calling it

“the most ambitious trade agreement between countries ever undertaken.”

However, unlike other deals currently being progressed by the European Commission, it is a mixed agreement—trade and investment.

The investment provisions of CETA touch on matters of national competence and, as such, the agreement must be ratified at the national level and the regional level where appropriate. The European Commission and respective national Governments have sought to circumvent this process by provisionally applying CETA since 21 September last year, but the deal has not been ratified and is therefore not yet fully enforceable. To understand why, we need to look at the Wallonian Parliament in Belgium, which refused to ratify the agreement over concerns about investment aspects of it and, in particular, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, now known under this agreement as the investment court system. This is where process meets substance. Belgium has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice to seek a ruling on whether the investment court system is even compatible with EU law.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case about a very flawed process. Following public pressure, the provisions in CETA for an investment court system are still only marginally better than the original investor-state dispute settlement system. Does he share my concern that this still amounts to a parallel justice system for large corporations that could render the UK vulnerable to lawsuits, such as that brought by Veolia against Egypt for introducing a minimum wage?

[Barry Gardiner]

I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern. That is one reason why it was part of the Labour party’s manifesto at the last election that we would not approve trade agreements that had these mechanisms in them.

European Affairs

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. We do need to be honest about this. An issue of this magnitude and importance is bound to create different views in all parties, but I would argue that the divisions on the Labour Benches are nothing like the fundamental divisions in the Cabinet and on the Government Benches. Certainly, the divisions on our side are not preventing legislation from being brought forward for us to vote on.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I just want to make a bit of progress, if that is okay.

The Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech on 2 March was as much an attempt to muffle those divisions as it was to provide clarity on the Government’s vision of the end-state relationship. To be fair, it was a more serious and detailed speech than those that had gone before, and it was pleasingly devoid of empty sloganeering. There was no repeat of earlier banalities such as “Brexit means Brexit” or “a red, white and blue Brexit”. At last, we heard a speech that started to engage with many of the hard truths about our departure from the EU. It stressed the need for compromise on all sides and conceded that inevitable trade-offs would have to be made if we were to avoid the hardest and most damaging of departures. As with her Florence speech in September last year, one wished that that content could have been delivered far earlier in the process. Had it been, I suspect that the country would have been in a better position today.

Judging by the raft of tortuous cherry and cake metaphors that we heard from the Government Benches in response to the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday, she might have succeeded in her immediate objective of holding together her deeply divided Government and party and in giving herself a small degree of room to manoeuvre in the months ahead. However, it is patently obvious that those divisions remain as deep as ever. That is blindingly obvious. If they had been healed, we would now be considering the Report stage of the Customs Bill or the trade Bill, rather than having a general debate such as this. Make no mistake, those divisions will have to be confronted, and the sensible majority in this House will have to be given the opportunity to shape the Brexit process sooner rather than later, not least because, although the Prime Minister’s speech was more realistic in important ways, it was still not realistic enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to make progress, as lots of people want to speak.

A sensible, pragmatic Government focused on the economic interests of the country would adjust their policy accordingly and consider the option of a new, comprehensive customs union along the lines that Labour has suggested. Importantly, so would any Government committed, as this Government are under the terms of the phase 1 agreement, to the avoidance of a hard border on the island of Ireland, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls—a border that is frictionless, not as frictionless as possible. Let us be clear: a border that has checks, even “very, very minimal” checks, as the Foreign Secretary suggested to a business audience last week, is still a border that would require some kind of infrastructure and patrols.

A version of the Canada-US border, which the Prime Minister suggested was being explored, is simply not good enough. The threat that such an outcome would pose to the politics, security and economy of the island of Ireland, as well as to the daily lives of citizens on both sides of the border, are obvious to most hon. Members.

We recognise that a new, comprehensive customs union, in itself, is not a complete solution to the Irish border issue. To obviate the need for physical infrastructure on and checks at that border and to uphold the Good Friday agreement in its entirety, in all three strands, full regulatory alignment in relation to all goods production and trade would be required. That alignment would, of course, have to be maintained over time as EU legislation evolved.

That is one of the reasons why we need to secure a new agreement that gives us the closest possible relationship with the single market: full access to European markets; no new impediments to trade; no drop in the rights, standards and protections built up over our 43 years as an EU member state; and no prospect of falling behind them in the future. We must recognise that our future economic relationship depends on maintaining a level playing field and the same standards that business wants.

But when it comes to goods, a conversation with the EU27 about full regulatory alignment, and the institutional mechanisms that might be required to facilitate such alignment, is not even possible when the Government have ruled out membership of a customs union. The idea that

“a comprehensive system of mutual recognition”

is an alternative solution—something that EU member states do not even expect of each other—is mistaken. There is no solution to the Irish border issue that does not involve some form of customs union. That is why the Government must reconsider their red line in this area. If they do not, it will be difficult to see what their solution to the Irish border issue—or, indeed, the issue of a customs border at Dover—might be. That matters because, although the Government may be able to fudge some of the difficult decisions for now, the issue of the Irish border issue can no longer be fudged.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am just coming to a close.

The draft withdrawal agreement merely needs to include a political declaration on the future relationship—that is, its broad outlines—with the details to be hammered out after the UK has left the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I add the Scottish National party’s welcome to our colleagues and friends from Afghanistan.

Here we are with yet another European Union debate. I was elected almost three years ago. After I was appointed Europe spokesperson, the European Union Referendum Bill was introduced. Europe has dominated my time here, but that is because it is important. Almost three years on, I think it is fairly safe to say that things are not going terribly well for the Government.

The EU has brought us a huge number of benefits. I am somebody who has enjoyed some of those benefits through education, which we can access regardless of our backgrounds and our financial means, and through freedom of movement, from which not only do we benefit, because we can work and live throughout the EU, but our economy benefits, because of the people coming to the United Kingdom to live and work.

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) was right in the preceding speech to highlight some of the difficulties faced by financial services in his constituency. In my constituency, I am regularly approached about issues on which we still do not have an answer, such as seasonal workers and the food and drink industry, which relies so heavily on seasonal workers and freedom of movement. We have had no clear answers from the Government.

All that is important right now, because some farmers have told me about a decline in the numbers of seasonal workers. What does that mean for crops that are planted in advance for the following years, many of which need to be taken in by hand? Business decisions for after we have left the EU need to be made now. There is precious little certainty and precious little decision making going on about what is going to happen after 29 March next year and, crucially, in the harvest period after that. The tourist sector also relies heavily on seasonal workers and freedom of movement.

I have just mentioned some of the benefits that EU membership brings to students. We must also reflect on the fact that our centres of education and research rely on the excellence that comes from their being able to tap into a pool of talent and the benefits of freedom of movement, as well as the benefits that are brought by Horizon 2020 and the other programmes that are so important.

The biggest employer in my constituency is the University of St Andrews, and a great deal of people who live locally work at the University of Dundee and Abertay University, and even at the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh. Education and research is a big industry and a big employer. Not only are those jobs important and not only are these learning establishments at which our young people and mature people can grow and increase their skills, thereby improving our economy, but the industry will benefit us in the years to come as we get those breakthroughs on things like dementia, dyslexia and helping kids to have a better educational experience through some of the research that has been done by EU nationals and through Horizon 2020.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling speech. Does he agree that it is extraordinary to see a Government so proudly leading the country into a situation in which we will all be so much poorer, not just economically but in the terms he describes—the richness of our relationships with other EU countries in our research establishments and elsewhere, which are so important? It is young people whose futures are being closed down in a most unforgivable way.

[Stephen Gethins]

As usual, the hon. Lady makes an excellent and powerful point, and Government Members would do well to listen to her—in fact, the hon. Members beside her might do well to do so too sometimes. I will come on to the finances that she rightly raises, but before I do I want to talk about the broader impact on public services in areas such as access to the single market, which is so important in decreasing red tape. We often hear about red tape, but access to the single market has reduced red tape, not least for our SMEs. I have mentioned seasonal workers, but we must also think about the impact on services and on our doctors, nurses and dentists who enjoy freedom of movement and come from throughout the European Union. It can be difficult to get a dentist and my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) often mentions the practice in his constituency that is made up of several EU nationals.

The single market makes us more competitive. I just mentioned the benefits of Horizon 2020, and the European Medicines Agency is also important—it is based in London, but it is due to be taken away, taking jobs with it.

Another issue is cash for public services, as the hon. Lady just mentioned. The UK Government talk about finding common ground between themselves and the Scottish Government. There is one area of common ground between them—the Minister is right to look up at that point. They agree in their analysis that leaving the EU will be devastating for the economies of both Scotland and the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government’s figures—we were told that they were not right until the UK Government’s figures suddenly came out and agreed with them—showed that the hit on our GDP will be devastating in every single scenario set out. Every 1% reduction in GDP could hit tax by £8 billion, but that does not even start to address the amount of money that we will have to shell out just to leave the European Union, reported to be £40 billion. The Chancellor is preparing to leave with initial costs—initial—of £3 billion. The Financial Times estimates that Brexit has already cost the UK economy £18 billion, or about £350 million a week. I am not sure where we have heard that figure before.

If we have lower GDP and less money from the tax take, we will have less money to spend on public services—that is a basic fact. In Scotland, the Scottish Government have made changes in tax so that the majority are no worse off or better off, but that will raise an additional £164 million. That is welcome, but it is only a drop in the ocean of the money that we will need to try to save our public services from the hits that will come their way. If anyone could tell me how they will plug the gap in public services that will be caused, I would be delighted to hear from them. Would anybody like to make an intervention? I did not think so. Nobody has a clue—

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is one of a whole host of examples that Members on both sides of the House are aware of. Businesses in our constituencies are asking how it is going to work, because at the moment we do not know.

Staying in a customs union is what the CBI wants, and I am afraid that the Government’s policy on international trade is one of Micawberism. Given the fondness of the President of the United States for punitive tariffs and the clear desire of the American Administration to open up our agricultural market, which is not what the Environment Secretary said he wants, do we really think that concluding a trade agreement with the US is going to happen any time soon? Do we really think we are going to get a trade deal with India before we have agreed to give more visas to its citizens?

The Minister for Trade Policy who opened the debate is no longer in his place, but the idea that being in the European Union has somehow stopped us trading with the rest of the world is nonsense. If that were the case, how is it that our largest single trading partner in the world is a country with which we do not have a trade agreement—the United States? If that is the case, why is it that our trade with China has increased by 64% since 2010 and China is now our fifth largest trading partner?

Having said all that, there are areas in which the European Union needs to show greater flexibility in the negotiations. It has done particular, different or special deals with its external partners—Canada, Norway, Ukraine, Switzerland and Turkey. Let us take the example of our continued participation in EU agencies, which are very important to business and therefore to trade. When the Prime Minister mentioned the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Medicines Agency and the European Chemicals Agency, the European Union’s response—basically, “No. You can’t take part. They’re the rules. Forget it!”—was spectacularly ill-judged.

We should say to all those we speak to in Europe, “Now, come on. You could have said, ‘Let’s sit down and talk about how we can do this, but you’ll have to pay, you’ll have to abide by the rules and you’ll have to accept judgments of the European Court of Justice.’” Such an approach should not be a problem for the Government because, in the Prime Minister’s speech on security in Munich, she said that to maintain co-operation on security, we would accept the remit of the ECJ. That is another example of reality beginning to dawn on the red lines of the Government’s policy.

[Caroline Lucas]

On the gulf between what was promised and what is now being delivered, both economically and on the issue of Northern Ireland, would the right hon. Gentleman at least be willing to keep an open mind on the merits and wisdom of the people having a say on the Brexit deal?

[Hilary Benn]

Although I am tempted by the hon. Lady’s intervention to get into my views, which I think are well known, about a second referendum, I hope she will forgive me if I do not do so, in view of the pressure of time.

The other issue I want to mention is timing. Although we are two thirds of the way through the withdrawal process, we have not even started negotiating our future relationship with a deal that is meant to stand us in good stead for decades to come, and it is not something that can be done in a hurry. I therefore make a plea for flexibility both during the remainder of the article 50 period and during the transition period, when the bulk of the negotiations will be done.

Since this is a debate about European affairs, I want to talk about some of the broader challenges we face in Europe and about Britain’s contribution to addressing them at a time when so much of our effort, energy and time is being spent dealing with the consequences of Brexit. Let us take the nerve agent attack in Salisbury. This is exactly the circumstance in which we need a multilateral response—the Prime Minister spoke about that today—and, in the case of Europe, we need the closest possible co-operation. Yet this is also the moment when we are undermining such co-operation through Brexit, and pulling apart that relationship in the hope, which I accept is what the Prime Minister has said she wants, of then rebuilding it. In truth, the use of that nerve agent is exactly the reason we need to conclude swiftly an agreement for co-operation with the other 27 members on defence, security, foreign policy and the fight against terrorism.

There are so many other things to which we should be turning our attention. How are we going to sustain strong economies in Europe? How are we going to respond to what is a wave of nostalgia for an age gone by—people are trying to come to terms with change—that informs much of the support for some political parties and movements right across Europe? When we look at the Mediterranean, we can see the extent of youth unemployment in north African countries and the challenges they face in meeting the needs of their populations. When we look at climate change, we should think of the people who will flee if droughts or downpours force them to do so, never mind the fact that people will in the end kill each other not because of their different political views, but because they are fighting over natural resources, including water. We should also think about threats to peace and security and about the onward march of technology, with the challenges and the fantastic opportunities that it will create.

While we wrestle with the desire for greater self-determination and control, we must not lose faith in the multilateral institutions—the European Union, the UN and others—that we created to give ourselves a better chance of dealing with those challenges. If we have learned one thing from the past 100 years, never mind the past 1,000 years, it is that, to be able to look after ourselves, we must look after others, and to do that successfully we have to learn to work together.

Trade Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As a doctor, I have never thought that falling off a cliff is sensible. It is certainly clear that it is beneficial to the UK to have a number of agreements in place, which is why we have introduced the legislation—to provide maximal continuity and security. That is the whole point of the legislation. My hon. Friend is correct that we will have to do the same exercise with our schedules in Geneva, but if I may make one slight correction, we are already an independent member of the WTO in our own right and we simply operate our schedules through the EU. We are not a member of the WTO by virtue of our membership of the EU in the same way as we are with the GPA.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Given that the Bill covers only existing EU trade agreements, will the Secretary of State guarantee that there will definitely be a second trade Bill in due course to cover new trade deals with non-EU countries? If he cannot guarantee that, will he accept that it is even more important that the openness and transparency that he claims to support are reflected in this Bill? One way to do that would be to ensure that, like the European Parliament and the US Congress, this Parliament has the right to reject trade agreements. The negative procedure does not provide a real opportunity to say no.

[Dr Fox]

As I think I already said, we will use separate vehicles for new free trade agreements, and we will introduce a separate proposal on consultation. I am keen not to get to the position we got to in, for example, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, where a whole negotiation was undertaken only to find there was insufficient public support. It is much better to seek support for a trade agreement mandate by having as wide a consultation as possible across the country with various ranges of stakeholders before we enter such negotiations. That is more democratic, and the process is more efficient. Consumers will in future take a greater interest in trade agreements than they have perhaps taken in the past, so consultation is also politically prudent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I rise to speak in favour of denying the Bill a Second Reading, for two simple reasons. The first is that the Bill would simply not be necessary were the Prime Minister and her shambolic Cabinet to reverse their masochistic and deeply misguided decision to reject the option of a soft Brexit by making leaving the EU single market and customs union such a red line in their negotiations with the EU27. The second reason is that the Bill fails to provide for a proper role for Parliament in the scrutiny and approval of the replacement trade agreements.

The Secretary of State spoke earlier about his apparent commitment to openness and transparency, yet the procedure outlined in the Bill, far from being an improvement on EU scrutiny processes, is significantly worse in that respect. In the UK, trade agreements can be negotiated entirely under royal prerogative powers, giving the Government free rein to decide when and with whom to start negotiations, to decide their own priorities and objectives, to conduct negotiations in deep secrecy and to conclude an agreement without any meaningful scrutiny by Parliament at all. We in this House are therefore in a much worse position than our colleagues in the European Parliament or, indeed, the US Congress. That not only sidelines Members of this House, but prevents input from the public and civil society organisations. That is a huge democratic deficit that must be corrected.

The second point to make is that Ministers might well be absolutely wrong in suggesting that this is simply a case of rolling over existing EU trade agreements. As other hon. Members have made clear, plenty of countries with which we have trade agreements might not wish to be rolled over in that way, and they might have strong views about changing those agreements. Indeed, paragraph 53 of the explanatory notes states that

“the new UK third country agreements that are implemented through”

this Bill

“will be legally distinct from the EU…agreements on which they are based. It may…be necessary to substantively amend the text of the previous…agreements”.

We need to recognise that we not talking about a straightforward roll-over; we are talking about essentially new agreements. Presumably that is why the Bill grants Ministers extraordinary Henry VIII powers to implement —or, more accurately, replace—existing agreements without further parliamentary scrutiny for up to 10 years. If this was going to be as simple as the Government suggest, they would not need 10 years—they would not need 10 months, according to them—so there is quite simply a flaw at the heart of their argument. This Bill is supposed to help to implement an independent trade policy following withdrawal from the EU, but it does nothing to put in place the kind of framework that should be required for an accountable trade policy in a modern democratic country.

Nor have we had any guarantee from the Government that there will be a second trade Bill, covering new trade deals with non-EU countries. When I asked the Secretary of State earlier, he referred rather vaguely to vehicles that would be brought forward vis-à-vis each new trade agreement made. He has not made a commitment to a second trade Bill, which would be the vehicle for all the scrutiny and transparency powers that we would like to see. Unless the Minister is about to intervene on me—I would be delighted if he did—it is even more important to ensure that this is the Bill in which we put in place all the transparency and scrutiny mechanisms that we urgently need, whether we are talking about replacement agreements with the EU or non-EU trade agreements.

The kind of framework that we need would include, for example, the requirement for impact assessments to be conducted before negotiating or renegotiating a trade agreement. Those impact assessments should not be limited just to economics; they should cover social, environmental and human rights aspects and, crucially, they should be published. The public should be consulted about the potential deal, as is required in the US. If the decision is to go ahead, Parliament should be required to give its consent to a mandate for the negotiations, a procedure that could build on the model in Denmark. The Government should conduct negotiations transparently, releasing texts before and after each negotiating round, building on the procedures in the EU and following practices that are common in other areas of international negotiation, such as the climate talks.

During negotiations, a parliamentary committee should be responsible for scrutinising developments, building on the EU system and enabling Parliament to direct changes of approach as needed. Crucially, at the end of negotiations, Parliament should be guaranteed a vote before the agreement is implemented, as are both the European Parliament and US Congress. This should not be just a simple, straight “up or down” vote, which comes with great pressure to accept bad aspects for the sake of something positive in the deal, but one that allows Parliament to insist on a good deal.

The Bill as it stands is simply not fit for purpose. It is not democratic and it does not take us forward in terms of taking back control. It takes us backwards.