UK–Commonwealth Trading Relationship

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, the Commonwealth is an important institution. While it might reflect on its upbringing from the past, it nevertheless has a continuing relevance and impact. It is a voluntary association of 54 countries, with almost a third of the world’s population, and stretches all around the globe.

It has been a very interesting debate this afternoon and I am grateful that so many notable contributions have been made today. These include that of the noble Lord, Lord Marland, the present chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. I am grateful to him and many others with notable Commonwealth experience, and experience elsewhere as envoys or representatives of trade. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, president of the CBI, works with India; the noble Lord, Lord Risby, with Algeria; the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, through the CPA; my noble friend Lord Triesman was Minister for the Commonwealth; my noble friend Lady Liddell, was high commissioner to Australia; and my noble friend Lady Donaghy also has experience. For the first time, we are to be responded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, while the International Trade Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, is busy overseas on a trade mission. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for introducing the debate and for initiating discussion on trade matters, particularly in relation to the Commonwealth. It is an opportune moment to recognise the Commonwealth’s potential to bring opportunity and benefits, such as the vaccines, spoken about by my colleague and noble friend Lady Chapman.

Now that the UK has left the EU, it can strike wider agreements independently of the EU and must refamiliarise itself with this responsibility, undertaking meaningful dialogue with industry, communities and Parliament in the process. It is regrettable that the Government continue to approach trade agreements as an executive role of prerogative, relying on the outdated CRaG process that governed agreements while the UK was an EU member state. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his remarks as a member of your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee. He has often spoken about, and stressed the need for, a more meaningful process of scrutiny through the parliamentary approval process.

Let me be quite clear: on this side, we are in favour of good trade. We want good trade deals that grow the economy, bring greater wealth to nations, stimulate enterprise and sectors, protect livelihoods and standards, and reflect the modern approach to trade that goes wider than mere economic exchange: free trade, yes, but with a purpose. If that can be achieved through agreements with Commonwealth countries via proper parliamentary scrutiny, we welcome that. If they are bad agreements, we will say so. That does not mean we are against trade, just as it has nothing to do with Brexit or nostalgia. It means it is a bad deal—as simple as that. We want the UK to do better: to have better agreements, and ones that benefit all sectors of the economy.

The Commonwealth continued to trade, and will continue to trade, with the UK as we seek new wider agreements in this new environment. The UK and the Commonwealth have the distinct advantages of a long association, cultural ties and shared values. The Government must take account of that and build more progressive agreements. That does not mean signing up to any agreement. From the signs of this Government’s record so far, Ministers appear not to have the same approach. There does not seem to be any strategic policy; it appears to be trade at any cost. Let us consider the recently announced agreement in principle with Australia, a Commonwealth country, and the first deal struck after securing the continuation of trade agreements from EU membership. Instead of using this opportunity to create jobs in every sector, drive up economic recovery and raise standards around the world, the Government have done the opposite. This agreement in principle gives Australia all and more than it wants—indeed, all it could ask for—with potentially devastating impacts on UK food producers and their industry. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is quite correct to draw attention to this in his remarks concerning Welsh lamb producers.

It remains to be seen what the Trade and Agriculture Commission will make of it as, following concessions in the Agriculture Act and the Trade Act, its recommendations are awaited and it has not even been constituted as a statutory body yet. The Government have yet to respond to the report from the previous TAC. Has the deal undergone the proper, considered scrutiny before agreement?

This deal sets a worrying precedent for the UK but a potential bonanza for other Commonwealth countries, such as India, New Zealand and Canada. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is concerned about the effects on the remaining Commonwealth nations. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s remarks in that respect. Furthermore, what will be the cumulative effect in the UK, when countries such as America and Brazil, outside the Commonwealth, join in with similar deals?

Another important aspect of international trade is its effect on the progress of human rights. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who spoke forcefully on this aspect, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, and my noble friend Lady Quin. The Government have repeatedly said that they were involved with international forums, including the Commonwealth, to promote human rights, but in rollover deals and deals in progress, the UK’s approach has been marred by inconsistencies. In your Lordships’ House Ministers have repeatedly said:

“Trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights.”


The Government argued forcefully against my noble friend Lord Collins’s human rights amendment to the Trade Act. They argued against the genocide amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. They argued again against the Motion to Regret on the Cameroon agreement. In Cameroon, another Commonwealth country, the Government there have committed widespread abuses of the English-speaking population since 2017. Yet the Government rolled over this EU agreement, without allowing a proper debate to take place in the Commons.

The Government have also announced the Australia deal as a necessary precursor to agreeing the exact deal known as a CPTPP, which includes five Commonwealth countries. There is not one clause that the Government will seek any exemption from or amendment to. Compare that passive approach to a fellow Commonwealth country’s approach. New Zealand ratified this partnership agreement in 2018 but was prepared not to unless it was exempted from the provisions of the investor-state dispute settlement. Why, with concerns over ISDS, did the Government not also demand exemption? Why are the Government not using the accession process to press for improvements to the current provisions on financial services, small businesses and mutual recognition of qualifications? Why are the Government not arguing for new chapters to cover educational aspects, exports, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and co-operation on new technology? Many speakers this afternoon have high- lighted the importance of the digital economy and the benefits of digital connectivity.

The Government need to stop this headlong rush into poor agreements. They need to consider carefully, when in negotiation with Commonwealth countries or other international partners, what the implications of these deals are. The words of my noble friend Lord Rooker, with his experience in necessary inspections and checks, need to be heeded. The Government need to reflect on contradictions such as professing to uphold standards yet refusing to legislate for them.

We support the pursuit of good trade deals: ones that stand up for British interests, British jobs, British industries and enterprises, and British cultural values. Yes, trade can be a force for good, but it can also lead to disaster—to the export of good British industries, and to the diminution of Britain’s ability to bring greater progress to the world and its own reputation within it. The Minister’s actions so far are falling well short of this task.